Hanburyana © RHS - Royal Horticultural Society

Transcription

Hanburyana
© The Natural History Museum, London
A serial for horticultural taxonomy
VOLUME FIVE JUNE 2011
and nomenclature
Cover illustration:
Senecio candidans
(see page 8)
Drawn in 1769 by Sydney Parkinson (1745–1771) as “Cacalia
lanuginosa”. Under the supervision of Sir Joseph Banks,
Parkinson accompanied James Cook as botanical artist on the
Pacific voyage of the Endeavour in August 1768, producing 674
outline drawings of plants and 269 completed paintings.
© The Natural History Museum, London
Hanburyana
Volume 5, June 2011
C. D. Brickell & A. C. Leslie. Syringa pinetorum
W. W. Smith is in cultivation
F. Vrugtman. Lilac cultivar name registration 2009
C. M. Whitehouse. The correct name for the South
American Senecio (sea cabbage)
J. Cullen. Naturalised rhododendrons widespread in Great
Britain and Ireland
J. C. David. A short note on the names of primary hybrids in
Rhododendron section Pontica
J. M. H. Shaw. A new combination in Oxalis laciniata Cav.
J. C. David. Nomenclature of intergeneric hybrids of
Zephyranthes
J. M. H. Shaw. Miscellaneous nomenclatural and taxonomic
notes mainly relating to cultivated plants
I. M. Turner. The correct name for the weeping form of the
Indian mast tree (Polyalthia longifolia, Annonaceae)
E. C. Nelson. Ribes × beatonii, the original name for Ribes
aureum × sanguineum
C. M. Whitehouse. Recombination of Iris × norrisii
A. C. Leslie. Proposal to amend the ICNCP
S. R. Grayer. Nomenclatural Standards deposited in the
Royal Horticultural Society’s Herbarium, Wisley (WSY)
November 2008 – October 2009
3
5
8
11
30
33
37
47
57
61
67
68
69
Date of publication
Hanburyana Volume 4 (September 2009) was published on 28 October 2009.
Hanburyana ISSN 1749-723X
Published by: Science Dept, The Royal Horticultural Society, RHS Garden Wisley, Woking,
Surrey GU23 6QB
Printed by: Advantage Digital Print, The Old Radio Station, Bridport Road, Dorchester,
Dorset DT2 9FT
© Royal Horticultural Society 2011
Charity registration number 222879 / SC038262
Hanburyana
Volume 6, 2011
Editor: Dr John David
Assistant editor: Dr Christopher Whitehouse
Assistant editor, production & design: Richard Sanford
Papers and other contributions are welcome from anyone carrying
out research in horticultural taxonomy and nomenclature, both from
the UK and overseas.
The remit of Hanburyana is to provide a place of publication for
information on cultivated plants that is required to appear in print
and for which no other outlet exists. Relevant topics include:
•
•
•
•
Checklists and additions to Registers
Lists of standards held in herbaria
Papers and short notes on cultivated plant taxonomy
Proposals to amend the ICNCP and papers on broader
nomenclatural issues
• Bibliographic or biographic notes to assist with taxonomic
research
There is one volume published a year and a limited number of
printed copies are distributed to libraries and institutions with
an interest in horticultural taxonomy. Volumes are also made
available on the RHS website, from which individual papers may be
downloaded.
Manuscripts for publication in Hanburyana and requests for further
information, including guidelines for authors, should be sent to:
Dr John David
RHS Garden Wisley
Woking
Surrey
GU23 6QB
Email: [email protected]
Hanburyana
Volume Five
June 2011
Published in 2011 by
RHS Science Dept
The Royal Horticultural Society
RHS Garden Wisley, Woking, Surrey GU23 6QB
All rights reserved. The RHS asserts its copyright in this publication.
No part of it may be reproduced in another publication without
written permission from the Publisher.
ISSN 1749-723X
Copyright © The Royal Horticultural Society 2011
Printed by:
Advantage Digital Print, The Old Radio Station,
Bridport Road, Dorchester, Dorset DT2 9FT
visit the Royal Horticultural Society at:
www.rhs.org.uk
Hanburyana 5: 3–4 (2011) 3
Syringa pinetorum W. W. Smith is in cultivation
C. D. Brickell1 & A. C. Leslie2
1 2 The Camber, The Street, Nutbourne, Pulborough, West Sussex RH20 2HE
109 York Street, Cambridge CB1 2PX
In an earlier issue of Hanburyana, Freek Vrugtman (2009) drew attention
to the fact that material under this name in collections and nurseries
was in fact S. yunnanensis and that the true plant had not yet been
successfully introduced to cultivation. We are happy to report that at
least one plant of this species is in cultivation in the United Kingdom,
at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Wakehurst Place in Sussex. This was
derived from seed collected by us in September 1987 from the edge
of pine woodland beside the river in the Be Shui valley, along the
eastern flank of the Yulong Shan range, north of Lijiang, China.1 This
was distributed as B & L 12197 (not 12097 as has sometimes been
listed in error) and a voucher for the collection is in the RHS Herbarium
at Wisley (WSY). A specimen under this B & L number was confirmed
as S. pinetorum by Peter Green in June 1990. If any other plants grown
from this seed are still in cultivation we would be pleased to know
about them: there is a possible unconfirmed candidate at RHS Garden
Harlow Carr, but none at RHS Garden Wisley.
The species was first named by W. W. Smith (1916), from material
collected by George Forrest (F 12472) at Lijiang in 1914. The taxonomy
of the group to which S. pinetorum belongs has recently been revised
by J. Y. Chen et al. (2008). As a result of studying variation, especially in
leaf shape and indumentum, in several wild populations in China, they
concluded that five previously described species should be treated as
a single taxon, for which they use the name S. pinetorum. Thus they
treat S. wardii W. W. Sm., S. mairei (H. Lév.) Rehd., S. rugulosa McKelvey
and S. chuanxiensis S. Z. Qu & X. L. Chen as synonyms of S. pinetorum.
As now constituted S. pinetorum occurs in thickets, forests and forest
margins through western Sichuan, south-east Xijiang and north-west
Yunnan.
1
Now often referred to as the Baishui River.
© 2011 The Royal Horticultural Society
4
C. D. Brickell & A. C. Leslie
REFERENCES
Chen, J. Y, Xhang, Z. S. & Hong, D. Y. (2008). Taxonomic revision
of Syringa pinetorum complex (Oleaceae). Journal of Systematics and
Evolution 46(1): 93–95.
Smith, W. W. (1916). Diagnoses specierum novarum in herbario Horti
Regii Botanici Edinburgensis cognitarum. Notes from the Royal Botanic
Garden Edinburgh 9:71–144.
Vrugtman, F. (2009). Syringa afghanica and S. pinetorum: a mis
identification alert. Hanburyana 4: 13–16 (2009).
Hanburyana 5: 5–7 (2011) 5
Lilac cultivar name registration 20091
F. Vrugtman
International Registrar, International Cultivar Registration Authority Genus
Syringa L., Royal Botanical Gardens, Box 399, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3H8,
Canada
All correspondence concerned with additional information or plants
or propagules of newly registered lilac cultivars should be directed to
the registrants listed below, not to the Registrar.
Commencing with Lilac Registrations 1995, standard portfolios are
being established in accordance with Division V: Nomenclatural
Standards of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated
Plants, edn 8 (2009).
Previous registration lists of Syringa cultivar names appeared in
AABGA Bulletin (13(4):105–110; 14(3):95; 15(3):71–72; 16(4):131–132;
17(3):67–69; 18(3):87); HortScience (23(3):458; 24(3):435–436;
25(6):618; 26(5):476–477; 29(9):972; 31(3):327–328; 32(4):587–588;
33(4):588–589; 34(4):600; 35(4):549; 36(5):836; 37(7):1145; 38(6):1301;
39(6):1524; 40(6)1597; 42(1):5; 43(3):589).
Syringa reticulata subsp. reticulata ’Bailnce’ was registered 10 November
2009 as United States Plant Patent No. 20,458, a statutory registration,
by Rodney Bailey, Bailey Nurseries, Inc., St Paul, Minnesota, USA. The
original plant was discovered by Mr Bailey as a mutation (sport) of
S. reticulata in a residential garden in Hastings, Minnesota, in 2000.
Initial vegetative propagation took place in 2000. Propagated plants
are 100% true to the original plant in all characteristics. Characteristics
distinguishing ‘Bailnce’ from Japanese tree lilacs commonly in the
nursery trade include flower production at an earlier age, heavy
blooming habit, reliable annual bloom, essentially sterile flowers, and
darker foliage color. ‘Bailnce’ is said to produce more flowers and
fewer seed pods than ‘Ivory Silk’; the foliage of ‘Bailnce’ is puberulent
1
Contribution No. 190, Royal Botanical Gardens, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
6
F. Vrugtman
rather than glabrous. Thyrses up to 27cm in length and width; florets
about 7mm in diameter. At maturity ‘Bailnce’ will reach about 6m in
height and about 5.5m in width. Hardy in USDA Zone 3 to 7. Plants of
this cultivar are marketed under the trade designation Snowdance™.
Syringa pubescens subsp. patula ’Colby’s Twinkling Little Star’ was
registered 12 December 2009 by Frank Moro, Select Plus International
Nursery, 1510 Pine, Mascouche, Quebec J7L 2M4, Canada. The original
plant was selected from seedlings in 2008; the seed resulted from
open pollination of S. pubescens subsp. patula ‘Excellens’. The new
selection was discovered by Corinna Moro, named by Sara Moro and
described by Frank Moro. Initial vegetative propagation took place in
2009. The foliage is dark green. Thyrses are on average 12 to 15cm
long and 6 to 8cm wide; usually there is one thyrse per flowering
branch. Flower buds are dark purple. Florets about 1cm in diameter,
apex of corolla lobes sharply turned inward; the tubes about 1.5cm
long; tubes and corolla dorsally dark to medium purple, ventrally pale
purple with a deep purple stigma, giving the florets a bicolour effect.
The florets are considerably darker in colour than those of ‘Miss Kim’.
This lilac reblooms in autumn. At seven years of age the original
plant is about 1.5m tall and 1m wide. Hardy at least to USDA Zone
4b, but has not yet been tested elsewhere. Plants of this cultivar will
be introduced and distributed by Select Plus International Nursery.
A standard portfolio will be opened at Royal Botanical Gardens
Herbarium, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (HAM).
Syringa ’Penda’ was registered 27 December 2009 by Timothy
Wood, Spring Meadow Nursery, Inc., Grand Haven, Michigan, USA.
The original plant was selected from seedlings in 2004; the seed was
collected from S. ‘Josée’; the pollen parent being either S. ‘George
Eastman’ or ‘Red Pixie’. The new selection was discovered, named
and described by Timothy Wood. Initial vegetative propagation took
place in 2006. Propagated plants are 100% true to the original plant
in all characteristics. Plants vigorous; to about 1m tall and 1.5m broad;
relatively compact, upright and somewhat spreading; freely branching.
Lateral branches will develop at every node after pinching, i.e. removal
of terminal apices. Foliage dark green. Initial bloom commences in
mid-May in Michigan; reblooming in July and continuing until frost.
Lilac cultivar name registration 2009 7
Floriferous and fragrant. Thyrses on average 10cm long and 7cm
wide. Flower buds 83A, dark violet (RHS Colour Chart 1995 and Mini
Colour Chart 2005). Florets about 8mm in diameter, about 1.4cm in
length; when fully opened tubes and corolla dark pink violet, 77A.
Hardy at least to USDA Zone 3; has been grown successfully as far
South as Raleigh, NC, Zone 7b. United States Plant Patent No. 20,575
was granted on December 15, 2009; see also for detailed description.
Canadian Breeders Rights has been applied for, application number
08-6377. Plants of this cultivar are marketed under the trade
designation Bloomerang™ Purple, registration number 3655456. The
cultivar name ‘Penda’ was published in Lilacs, Quarterly Journal of the
International Lilac Society 38(4):129–131, November 2009; the name
has been established and accepted. Plants are being distributed in the
US by Wayside Gardens, Hodges, South Carolina; and in Canada by
Sheridan Nurseries, Georgetown, Ontario. A standard portfolio will
be opened at Royal Botanical Gardens Herbarium, Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada (HAM).
8
Hanburyana 5: 8–10 (2011)
The correct name for the South American Senecio (sea
cabbage)
C. M. Whitehouse
The name Senecio candicans has had rather a confused history. It is
usually applied in horticultural circles to a plant from the Falkland
Islands and southern tip of South America with broad ovate silvery
leaves and rather insignificant yellow-orange flowers. It is not
particularly hardy in the UK but is sometimes grown in the milder
counties (Taylor, 1980) and Ireland (Besant, 1939) for its attractive
foliage. Unfortunately, in the RHS Dictionary of Gardening (Huxley &
Griffiths, 1992) and the RHS Plant Finder (Philip & Lord, 1994 and
onwards), the name S. candicans has been linked to S. cineraria,
a Mediterranean species to which it is evidently unrelated. This
confusion appears to have arisen from the similarly named S. candidus
DC., considered by Flora Europaea (Tutin et al., 1976) as a synonym of
S. bicolor subsp. nebrodensis but now treated as a distinct species by
the Euro-Med Project under the name Jacobaea candida.
However, the name Senecio candicans was first coined by Wallich in his
catalogue for an Indian plant. It was later validated by de Candolle in
1834. This would make any later use of S. candicans for the southern
Atlantic plant a homonym and therefore illegitimate. Thus we are
left with the question of the legitimate name for the plant grown in
gardens today as S. candicans.
The South American plant was first described by Vahl in 1794,
based upon a specimen collected by Commerson on the shores of
the Magellan Straits, using the name Cacalia candicans. De Candolle
(1838: 412) concluded that this plant should be included in the genus
Senecio under the name S. candidans. Whether by good fortune or
good forethought, because he was aware of the problems it would
cause, de Candolle changed the spelling of Vahl’s epithet. The name
S. candidans could be considered an orthographic error to be corrected
under Art. 60 of the ICBN. This interpretation is supported by de
The correct name for the South American Senecio (sea cabbage) 9
Candolle’s (1838: 332) treatment of Cacalia in the same publication,
where the Vahl name, correctly given as C. candicans, points to Senecio
candicans as the accepted name. However, regarding the name as an
orthographic error would serve no benefit as a new name would then
be required. By adopting S. candidans as an intentional nomen novum
by de Candolle the problem of homonymy is avoided. This name
has already been adopted by Moore (1983) amongst others including
the International Plant Names Index (IPNI). It appears appropriate to
adopt this subtle change of name in our garden literature as well.
Senecio candidans DC., Prodr. 6: 412 (1838); Hook.f., Fl. Antarctica:
312, t. 109 (1846); Wedd., Chloris Andina 1: 117 (1856); Kew Bull.
1899, App.: 52 (1899); Reiche, Flora of Chile 4: 227 (1905); Cuatr. in
Fieldiana 27: 38 (1951); Moore, Flora of Tierra del Fuego: 242 (1983);
Erskine, Alpine Garden Society Bulletin 62: 72 (1985); Dillon, Helen
Dillon’s Garden Book: 119 (2007). Based on Cacalia candicans Vahl.
= Cacalia candicans Vahl, Symb. Bot. 3: 91, t. 71 (1794)
= Culcitium gayanum J. Rémy, Fl. Chil. 4(2): 130 (1849)
= Brachypappus candicans (Vahl) Sch.-Bip., Flora 38: 119 (1855)
= Senecio culciremyi Cuatr., Fieldiana 27: 43 (1950). Based on Culcitium
gayanum Remy
= Senecio candicans sensu Nicholson, Illustrated Dictionary of Gardening,
Suppl.: 667 (1901); Vallentin, Illustrations of the Flowering Plants and
Ferns of the Falkland Islands: t. 30 (1921); Besant in Gard. Chron. 106:
392 (1939); Proc. Roy. Hort. Soc. 85: 50, 94 (1960); Elliott in Journ.
Roy. Hort. Soc. 89: 277 (1964); Taylor, The Milder Garden: 217 (1990);
Erskine, Alpine Garden Society Bulletin 62: 274 (1994)
= S. cineraria sensu Huxley & Griffiths, RHS Dictionary of Gardening 4:
277 (1992); Lord et al., RHS Plant Finder (1994 onwards), pro parte
quoad syn.
Not to be confused with:
Senecio candicans Wall. ex DC. in Wight, Contributions to the Botany of
India: 22 (1834); DC., Prodr. 6: 369 (1838).
Senecio candidus (C. Presl) DC., Prodr. 6: 355 (1838).
= Cineraria nebrodensis Guss., Cat. Pl. Hort. Boccadifalco, Add.: 4 (1821)
10
C. M. Whitehouse
= Cineraria candida C. Presl in: Presl & Presl, Delic. Prag.: 95 (1822)
= Senecio bicolor (Willd.) Tod. subsp. nebrodensis (Guss.) Chater,
Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 68: 273 (1974); Tutin et al., Flora Europaea 4: 194
(1976)
= Jacobaea candida (C. Presl) B. Nord. & Greuter, Willdenowia 36: 712
(2006).
References
Besant, J. W. (1939). Notes from Glasnevin. Gardeners’ Chronicle 106:
391–392.
De Candolle, A. P. (1838). Prodromus Systematis Naturalis Regni
Vegetabilis, Pars VI. Paris: Treuttel & Würtz.
Huxley, A. & Griffiths, M. (1992). The New Royal Horticultural Society
Dictionary of Gardening. London: Macmillan.
Moore, D. M. (1983). Flora of Tierra del Fuego. Oswestry, Shropshire:
Anthony Nelson / St Louis, Missouri: Missouri Botanical Garden.
Philip, C. & Lord, W. A. (1994). The Plant Finder 1994/95. London:
Royal Horticultural Society.
Taylor, J. (1980). The Milder Garden. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.
Tutin, T. G. et al. (1976). Flora Europaea 4. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Vahl, M. (1794). Symbolae Botanicae 3. Copenhagen: Hauniae.
Hanburyana 5: 11–29 (2011) 11
Naturalised rhododendrons widespread in Great
Britain and Ireland
J. Cullen
Stanley Smith (UK) Horticultural Trust, Cory Lodge, PO Box 365, Cambridge
CB2 1HR
Introduction
The genus Rhododendron is a large one (about 1,000 species) with
a wide distribution across the northern hemisphere extending into
south-east Asia and into the southern hemisphere in Australia. It
consists of ground-growing or epiphytic subshrubs, shrubs and small
to large trees, often with striking and colourful inflorescences, so it
has been of interest to gardeners since at least the middle of the 18th
century. The plants are generally easy to grow, as long as the soil is
acidic or neutral; many of them are relatively easy to propagate (seed,
cuttings, grafts and layers are all used), and they are long-lasting, so
specimens planted 200 years ago can still be extant in gardens or
plantations.
The genus is divided into 8 subgenera, some of these further divided
into sections and subsections (Cullen, 2005; see also Argent, 2006).
Most of the hardy evergreen cultivated species belong to two of the
major subgenera: subgenus Rhododendron, and subgenus Hymenanthes.
As a general rule, species of subgenus Rhododendron will hybridise
easily and spontaneously with each other in gardens, as will species
of subgenus Hymenanthes. Hybridisation between members of the
different subgenera is possible, but is much more difficult and does
not occur spontaneously. Hybrids (produced easily when plants of
different species are grown together in gardens or collections, as
well as by design) tend to be much more vigorous than either of
their parents, setting seed more prolifically – a classic example of
“hybrid vigour”. The possibility of such hybridisation means that
many new types of plant can be produced in gardens: at present
over 20,000 cultivars, most produced by hybridisation followed by
selection, are registered with the Royal Horticultural Society, the
International Cultivar Registration Authority for the genus, and there
12
J. Cullen
are probably many more that are not yet registered. They generally
show the hybrid vigour mentioned above, and often have larger,
more colourful flowers than the wild species; hence they are very
widespread in gardens and estate plantings.
In the late 18th century, almost the only species available to gardeners
were those from Europe and North America and hybrids between
them.1 In the early 19th century, a few species from the Himalayas
were introduced, including the very striking R. arboreum Smith. This
was found to be not entirely hardy, so was deliberately crossed and
variously back-crossed with species and hybrids already in gardens,
producing a whole range of hybrids known as the “Old Hardy Hybrids”,
many of which still decorate gardens and parks in Britain and Ireland. In
the middle of the 19th century, Joseph Hooker’s expedition to Sikkim,
followed by the publication of his lavishly illustrated Rhododendrons of
the Sikkim Himalaya (1849–1851) led to the introduction of yet more
Himalayan species, which again were hybridised with the already
existing stocks. Later in the century, French missionaries working in
south-west China demonstrated the wide range of species available
from this area (Franchet, 1884–1888, 1889–1890). Their introductions
were largely unsuccessful, but the publication of works by Franchet
suggested to the English gardener A. K. Bulley that it would be
worthwhile investigating the area more thoroughly. This led to the
organisation of nine expeditions to the area between 1904 and 1930
by George Forrest (see McLean, 1997, 2004), who collected over
3,000 Rhododendron herbarium specimens, and sent back seed of
very many of these, which were grown on at the Royal Botanic Garden
Edinburgh. His efforts stimulated other collectors to visit the area: Frank
Kingdon-Ward, Joseph Rock, C. K. Schneider and H. Handel-Mazzetti,
among others, extended the areas explored and, again, introduced
many new Rhododendron collections, often described as new species,
which were immediately used in hybridisation in Europe (especially in
the UK). All this exploration made it clear that south-west China and
adjacent Burma and India represented one of the main centres of the
1
Some tropical, non-hardy south-east Asian species of subgenus Rhododendron
section Vireya (subgenus Vireya; see Argent, 2006) were introduced early on to
Dutch gardens, where they were grown in glasshouses.
Naturalised rhododendrons in Great Britain and Ireland
13
genus, with a very large number of species concentrated in a relatively
small but geographically and geologically diverse area. Collection
in this area is still continuing, and new material is introduced into
cultivation every year.
At present there are thousands of rhododendron plantings in Britain
and Ireland. Some of these are of the wild species (especially collections
in Botanic gardens); others (in mainly private and amenity gardens)
are of mixed species and cultivars.
Review of R. ponticum and its relationship with the invasive
rhododendron in the UK
It is against this background that we can consider the rhododendrons
that have naturalised themselves in the British landscape in suitable
areas, and gained such notoriety for their impact on the landscape
and natural habitats. It is the case that, excluding a few accidental
occurrences of Old Hardy Hybrids (see above) and similar plants,
such invasive material derives from only four species. Referred to as
“ponticum group” below, these are the species which formed series
Ponticum subseries Ponticum of the 1930s classification of the genus
(Stevenson, 1930), and which are still found as a group (though
without a formal name) within subgenus Hymenanthes section Pontica
subsection Pontica in Chamberlain (1982). These species, which were
all introduced by the early 19th century, are: R. ponticum L. (isolated
areas in Portugal and Spain, one location each in Bulgaria and adjacent
Turkey in Europe, the Black Sea coast of Turkey and Georgia, and an
outlier in Lebanon); R. catawbiense Michx. (eastern North America);
R. maximum L. (eastern North America) and R. macrophyllum G. Don
(western North America). Of these, R. maximum and R. catawbiense
are very hardy, being able to withstand very low winter temperatures;
R. ponticum is not reliably hardy in most of Britain and Ireland, while
R. macrophyllum is less hardy and less widely grown than the other
species.
In the Iberian peninsula, R. ponticum itself is neither vigorous nor
invasive; Ingram (1931), after studying several populations of the
wild Portuguese populations, remarked: ”in all cases the plants
were growing on the shaded banks of streams where the ground
14
J. Cullen
was cool and moist. In such positions it does not appear to be very
floriferous and there were only a few old flower-heads to be seen
and a very small number of flower-buds. I spent some time carefully
searching for seedlings, but could find none. From these observations
it would seem that this Rhododendron is not reproducing itself freely
in Portugal.” These observations are generally borne out by Sales
(1996). In northern Turkey the species is more abundant and forms
large populations.
These plants existed together in nurseries and gardens in the early
19th century, and were deliberately, as well as accidentally hybridised
and back-crossed, giving rise to a complex hybrid swarm involving
all the species. It is likely that deliberate hybridisation of R. ponticum
with R. catawbiense and R. maximum was carried out to produce
hybrids with greater cold-tolerance, as was done later on for the Old
Hardy Hybrids (Standish & Noble, 1850). The hybrids evidently found
conditions in the British Isles particularly congenial, and have spread
throughout the whole of the islands, except in those areas where the
soil is alkaline (Cross, 1975; Dehnen-Schmutz & Williamson, 2006).
Plants belonging to this hybrid swarm were widely grown as
ornamentals or were used as stocks for the growing of more exotic
species and cultivars that did not survive so well on their own roots.
These plants were also soon recognised as producing rapidly spreading
“stands” (actually interbreeding groups, equivalent to wild populations)
which occur in suitable places throughout the countryside.
These stands seem to represent a complex, variable, but reasonably
stable and invasive hybrid, acting more or less like a distinct species,
which is found only in Britain and Ireland. The plants are generally
referred to as “R. ponticum”, but they have been suspected to be
hybrids for some time (see, e.g., Cox & Hutchinson, 1963; Clement &
Foster, 1994:113). It is the case that there is no name for the hybrid nor
has it been properly characterised. An investigation, based largely on
molecular characters, was carried out by Milne & Abbott (2000); this,
however, did not specifically examine the morphological variation,
and no adequate voucher specimens were kept or can be found.
Milne & Abbott supported the idea that introgression had occurred
15
between some British R. ponticum populations and other species,
in particular R. catawbiense and R. maximum. The most interesting
result of their work is that in all the British and Irish material, the wild
R. ponticum in the swarm is all derived from Iberian stocks. This bears
out anecdotal experience from the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
gathered over many years, which indicates that Turkish accessions of
R. ponticum grow rather poorly in British situations, and succumb to
sudden and unexplained death.
In order to address the lack of morphological data on the stands the
present study, which was initiated by Arthur Chater, was undertaken.
BSBI members were encouraged to send the author specimens for
study and comparison, to see if taxonomic recognition could be
given to this group, and, if possible, to recognise within it distinct
morphological types at some rank.
The survey of British and Irish naturalised material
First survey
In response to an appeal distributed to BSBI county recorders in April
2006, 121 specimens were received (up to the end of August 2006).
These were provided by 11 collectors, with a major contribution from
Arthur Chater. As well as these, some 28 specimens already existent
in herbaria (BM, CGE) were also studied, giving a total of 149 (it is
remarkable that there are so few herbarium specimens of the group in
British herbaria – it seems that collectors of the local flora have almost
entirely ignored them). The coverage of Britain is rather patchy, with
records from Vice Counties 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 26, 28, 29, 38, 44,
46, 48, 49, 56, 59, 70, 74, 83, 88, 103, 106, 108, 110, H6, H12. In
contrast there is almost complete cover indicated for R. ponticum in
the 2nd edition of the Atlas of the British Flora (Preston, Pearman &
Dines, 2002). The details of all these specimens are available from the
author.
Of these 149 specimens, plants with characters from species outside
of the ponticum group (such as R. arboreum) can be removed.
There are 11 of these, eight of which are old hardy hybrids close to
R. ‘Altaclarense’ or cultivars derived from it; three are hybrids involving
16
J. Cullen
a species of section Pontica subsection Fortunea (perhaps R. fortunei
Lindley). These 11 collections probably represent plants that originally
were deliberately sited as ornamentals.
From the remaining 138 specimens, a further group of 33 can be
selected. These represent those plants which have characters that are
outside the range of variation of R. ponticum in the wild, as described
on pp. 20–21. These characters have been derived from the other
species in the ponticum group and are as follows:
1. Pedicels with dendroid hairs: 4 specimens. This is a character of
R. catawbiense.
2. Calyx more than 3mm: 21 specimens. This is a possible character
from R. maximum.
3. Ovary rounded, hairy (generally red or brown tomentose): 5
specimens This is a character of R. catawbiense, R. maximum and
R. macrophyllum.
4. Ovary rounded, hairy and glandular: 2 specimens. This is a
character of R. maximum.
5. Leaf length/breadth ratio less than 2.5, the apex and base rather
rounded: 3 specimens. A character of R. catawbiense.
6. With very small flowers (less than 2.8cm): 1 specimen. A character
of R. maximum.
Most of these specimens show only one extraneous feature, but
one shows characters of both maximum and catawbiense; one shows
characters of maximum and perhaps any of the others; and two show
two characters perhaps derived from R. maximum.
Extraction of this group (33) and the non-ponticum hybrid group (11)
leaves 105 specimens which show no morphological feature of any
species other than R. ponticum (apart from a wider range of corolla
and corolla-spot colour), but which have the vigour characteristic of
hybrids. There seems to be no way in which this collection could be
divided up into infraspecific taxa; numerous 1-character units could
be devised, but these would overlap with each other, giving rise
to a situation in which individual specimens could belong to more
than one infraspecific taxon. This was done by Fedde for varieties of
17
Papaver rhoeas – see Fedde, 1909 – but is certainly not good botanical
taxonomic practice. A better way might to be to recognise a small
number of distinctive types (i.e. those with characters of the other
species) as formae, but even with this solution, they would represent
only individual plants growing among others.
In the 138 specimens available there are collections which represent
more than one specimen from the same stand (or population). These
give some idea of the variability of the material as it exists in the field.
There are 69 specimens representing 16 stands, one from Stornoway
in the Isle of Lewis, one from Warwickshire, one from Merioneth, one
from Norfolk and twelve from Ceredigion. All of these suggest that
characters of R. catawbiense, R. maximum and perhaps R. macrophyllum
occur as individuals among plants that are much closer to R. ponticum,
and that each stand is likely to contain some such plants.
Stands surveyed in 2007
Because of the results mentioned in the last paragraph, in the second
year contributors were asked to record several morphological details
(pedicel indumentum, calyx length, corolla length, corolla colour,
corolla spot colour and ovary indumentum) on up to 10 randomly
selected plants from a population. For each population they were
also asked for any details on its history, its size, and whether or
not it was expanding. The results from this survey were rather
disappointing; most of the stands studied were in the southern part of
the British Isles. Thirteen stands were included from Surrey, two from
Buckinghamshire, one from Devon, one from Norfolk, one from North
Lancashire and 19 from Ceredigion. Nothing at all was contributed
from Scotland, where the situation may be somewhat different (Milne
& Abbott, 2000). Field workers are encouraged to look at naturalised
rhododendrons wherever they occur, and to compare them with the
plants recorded here.
Study of the returns essentially confirmed the pattern recorded from
the individual specimens. All the stands showed great variation in
corolla and corolla-spot colour (a rather surprising result, and one
not easy to interpret, as the variation in corolla and corolla-spot
colour of wild Iberian material is not well recorded). Further, almost
18
J. Cullen
every sample contained at least one specimen that had at least one
character apparently derived from species in the ponticum group, and
some samples contained up to half with such characters. No possible
division into formae or other taxa seems possible.
In summing up, it seems clear that the British naturalised “R. ponticum”
is a variable hybrid swarm or neospecies. Though much of it is not
morphologically easily distinguishable from wild R. ponticum, some of
it is; it is, however, distinguishable mainly on the variation in corolla
and corolla-spot colour and the physiological character of vigour,
which has not been quantified for this group of plants, but for which
there is strong anecdotal information and some scientific evidence
(see Ingram, 1931; Cross, 1975).
Taxonomy
This group of species is relatively easily defined and recognised. It
consists of evergreen shrubs without scales or flattened hairs and with
terminal, racemose inflorescences (subgenus Hymenanthes section
Pontica), which are many-flowered, generally ultimately pyramidal,
the rhachis and pedicels extending after flowering, the corollas with
lobes as long as, or slightly longer than the tube (subsection Pontica),
and the leaves ultimately more or less glabrous beneath when mature
(”Subseries Ponticum” Stevenson, 1930). The species themselves are
described below, and a key to them is provided (the descriptions are
based on those published in various Floras and accounts of the genus,
as modified by information provided by specimens studied for this
project).
Observations on some of the characters used in the descriptions and
key:
1. Leaf-shape and size. In general, the smaller the leaf, the more likely it
is to be narrowly elliptic rather than obovate. But leaf-measurements
are somewhat uncertain: the leaves beneath the inflorescences in all
species tend to be smaller and more elliptic than those on the vegetative
shoots; and in many herbarium specimens the only leaves included
are those beneath the inflorescences. Thus, the measurements for
these characters must be used with caution.
19
2. Leaf punctation and the presence of hair bases in mature leaves. In
many specimens hair-bases or small dots (punctae) are noticeable on
the undersurface of the leaves. The only species that is described in
the literature as having these is R. catawbiense, but punctae certainly
appear on the leaves of a number of wild specimens of R. ponticum
from Portugal and Spain. The significance of this character requires
further study in the wild material.
3. Presence of dendroid hairs on the pedicels. This is another character
that is characteristic of R. catawbiense; in this species the dendroid
hairs are easily seen, as glandular hairs are absent or few. In at least
some of the other species, the pedicels are very glandular and sticky,
and various kinds of material adhere to them. Dendroid hairs are
present on the pedicels of some specimens, but it is extremely difficult
to decide whether they are attached directly to the pedicel or stuck
to the viscid glands (dendroid hairs occur on the bud-scales, and can
be easily transferred to the pedicels). Again, this character has to be
considered with some caution.
4. Hairs on the ovary. In all the literature I have seen, the ovaries of
R. ponticum (the wild species from all parts of its range) are described
as “glabrous”. This, in fact, is incorrect. In about half of the wild
herbarium specimens I have seen from Iberia, the ovary bears very few
to few small, white, bristle-like hairs; these seem to persist into fruit,
but are then very scattered and easily missed. No specimens I have
seen from Turkey and Lebanon have such hairs. In British naturalised
material, such hairs have been used as evidence of genetic material
of some of the other species (R. catawbiense, see Clapham, Tutin &
Moore, edn 3, 1987), but this is clearly not definitely established, as
such hairs could have come from the original introduction of Iberian
R. ponticum.
5. Ovary shape. In wild R. ponticum the ovary is very narrowly cylindric,
tapering only a little above, and the apex is truncate; the surface is
dark green to brownish to almost black, and is always visible even
if bristles are present, as they are scattered. In the other species the
ovary is much more rounded above, less obviously cylindric, and
the tomentose or tomentose and glandular hair-covering completely
20
J. Cullen
obscures the surface of the ovary. In some British material the
tomentose or tomentose and glandular hair-covering is rather sparse,
and the ovary surface can generally be seen to be green; such plants,
otherwise resembling wild R. ponticum, do presumably carry genetic
material from the other species.
Key to species1
1a. Ovary narrowly cylindric, truncate, glabrous or with white
bristles, but these few so that the dark green, brown or almost
black surface is clearly visible......................................ponticum
1b. Ovary rather rounded, not truncate, densely hairy or glandular
so that the surface is not visible............................................... 2
2a. Ovary densely glandular; calyx-lobes ovate to oblong or strapshaped, 3.5mm or more, longer than broad; corolla 2–3cm
long........................................................................... maximum
2b. Ovary densely reddish-tomentose but not glandular; calyx-lobes
semi-orbicular, up to 1.5mm long, broader than long; corolla
generally more than 3cm long................................................ 3
3a. Leaves rounded to the shortly acute apex and base, length/breadth
ratio up to 2.4; pedicels with dendroid hairs............. catawbiense
3b. Leaves acute at the apex and tapered to the base, length/breadth
ratio more than 2.8; pedicels glabrous or sparsely glandular..... ..........................................................................macrophyllum
Rhododendron ponticum L.
Willkomm & Lange (1870: 341); Sampaio (1947:453), Castroviejo et
al. (1993: 508), Valdés et al. (1987: 460), Popova (1972: 9), Stevens
(1978: 93), Chamberlain (1982: 313–316).
Illustration: Botanical Magazine, t.690 (1803).
= R. baeticum Boiss. & Reut.
Shrub, sometimes tightly growing and small (to 1 m) in drier situations,
otherwise up to 6m and rather open in growth. Leaves evergreen,
hairy when young, glabrous when mature though often with punctae
persisting beneath, dark green above, pale green or brownish beneath,
narrowly elliptic to obovate, gradually tapered to base and apex, 9.5–
1 The complex hybrid taxon named below would potentially key out in any
of these couplets.
21
15(–21) × 3.0–3.6cm, length/breadth ratio 3.0–3.6 (the smaller the
leaves the greater their tendency to be narrowly elliptic. Inflorescence
up to 14-flowered, pyramidal, the pedicels and rhachis elongating
during the life of the inflorescence, the branches spreading; developing
before the new leaves. Rhachis glabrous to finely silky-hairy to glandular.
Pedicels generally glandular-sticky, often densely so, sometimes with
simple hairs as well, especially towards the top. Bud-scales (bracts &
bracteoles): densely hairy, the hairs often dendroid, quickly deciduous.
Calyx 0.5–2(–3.5)mm, 5-lobed, the lobes flattened-triangular or
rarely 1 of them developing a strap-shaped apex, greenish or pale.
Corolla 3–4.5cm, generally pale or pinkish purple with orange, yellow
or greenish spots on the upper lobe (the precise colours of the wild
plants are not recorded on the specimens); lobes as long as, or longer
than the tube. Stamens 10, each filament with dense, cellophane-like
hairs forming a patch towards the base. Ovary cylindric-conical, dark
green, brown or almost black, truncate at the apex, glabrous or with
few or rarely many simple, white bristles (often mainly found towards
the base), the surface clearly visible between them. Style inserted in
a depression in the top of the ovary. Capsule ripening late, woody,
glabrous or occasionally with some bristles.
distribution:
Bulgaria, Georgia, Lebanon, Portugal, Spain, Turkey.
Introduced into Britain in 1763 or 1770 (Bean, 1976), a number of
varieties (sometimes also given the rank of subspecies or even species)
have been described within R. ponticum, but none of them seems
to have any distinctiveness. These are: var. baeticum (Boiss. & Reut.)
Willk. (= R. baeticum Boiss. & Reut., subsp. baeticum (Boiss. & Reut.)
Hand.-Mazz.) the name applied to western Mediterranean material
– see Sales (1996); var. brachyphyllum Boiss., a name applied to
Lebanese material; var. skorpilii Domin, a name applied to Bulgarian
material; and var. heterophyllum Anşin, a name recently given to some
Turkish material (Anşin & Terzioğlu, 1994), but it is not clear as to how
it differs from “normal” Turkish R. ponticum.
Several cultivars are usually directly attributed to selections from
R. ponticum, notably: ‘Album’, ‘Album Multimaculatum’, ‘Angusti
folium’, ‘Angustissimum’, ‘Atropurpureum’, ‘Aureomarginatum’,
22
J. Cullen
‘Bullatum’,
‘Cassinefolium’,
‘Cheiranthifolium’
‘Coerulescens’
‘Contortum’, ‘Elegantissimum’, ‘Flore Pleno’, ‘Foliis Albis Variegatis’,
Foliis Argenteis’, ‘Foliis Aureis’, ‘Foliis Marginatis’, ‘Foliis Purpureis’,
‘Foliis Variegatis’, ‘Frondosum’, ‘Granulatum’, ‘Nazarethii’, ‘Obtusum’,
‘Ovatum’, ‘Pumilum’, ‘Punctatum’, ‘Roseum’, ‘Rotundifolium’,
‘Salicifolium’ and ‘Vacciniifolium’. These need further investigation to
clarify their relationships with the plants included in this study. None
of them has been extensively planted, and their invasive proclivities
are uncertain.
Rhododendron maximum L.
Small (1933: 997–998), Fernald (1950: 1117–1118), Leach (1962),
Radford, Ahles & Bell (1968: 798), Chamberlain (1982: 316).
Shrub or straggling tree to 10m. Young branchlets pubescent and
stipitate-glandular. Leaves evergreen, very thick, oblong or oblongobovate to elliptic or elliptic-oblanceolate, 10–30 × 2–8cm, acute or
shortly acuminate at the apex, abruptly narrowed to the base, dark
green above, paler and often scurfy-tomentose (when young, the
indumentum sometimes persisting towards base near midrib) beneath;
length/breadth ratio 2.8 or more. Petioles sparsely tomentose.
Inflorescence 10–30-flowered, condensed, developing with or after
the new leaves are unfolding (Leach, 1962). Pedicels densely viscidglandular. Calyx-lobes: slightly unequal, ovate to oblong, mostly
longer than wide, obtuse, glandular, 3.5–6mm. Corolla campanulate,
3.5–4cm broad, 2.5–3cm long, rose-pink and white or wholly white
in f. album (Pursh) Fern. or deep pink to purple in f. purpureum (Pursh)
Fern., greenish in the throat on the upper side and spotted with yellow
or orange. Ovary glandular and hairy, the surface not visible, rather
rounded. Capsule narrowly ellipsoid or cylindric-ellipsoid, glandular.
Seeds less than 2mm.
distribution:
USA (Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia).
Introduced to Britain in 1736 (Bean, 1976). There is some uncertainty
concerning the possible indumentum of the leaves in this species. Leach
23
(1962), who knew the plant well in the wild, says of it: “forms with
a conspicuous, plastered indumentum are fairly common, the hairy
coating dense enough to give the undersurface of 2-year-old leaves
a coppery colour with a metallic sheen... Under the microscope the
hairs are shortly and intricately branched...” In contrast, Chamberlain
(1982) has: “lower surface with a thin fugaceous indumentum that is
embedded in a thin surface film and usually persists towards the base
of the leaf, especially near the midrib”. Of the specimens that I have
seen, all agree more closely with Chamberlain’s description, having
no obvious hairs on any part of the mature leaf undersurface, though
it is possible some might have been missed near the veins.
Leach also mentions (under R. catawbiense) that this is easily
distinguished from R. maximum “because it lacks the incomplete
tuft of bracts resembling miniature leaves which encircle the buds,
both vegetative and floral.” The specimens of R. maximum available
to me do not show this characteristic, as buds are extremely rarely
available on herbarium or, indeed, flowering specimens, but the
small diagram in Leach’s book does show that the lowermost bud
scales tend to spread. This is a character that needs to be looked
at in living specimens when not in flower. Further, Leach notes that
the inflorescences of this species open very late, and are frequently
obscured by the newly developing leaves. Here is another character
that is not readily assessed from dried material; it should be looked for
in the living material.
Rhododendron catawbiense Michx.
Small (1933: 997–998), Fernald (1950: 1117–1118), Leach (1962),
Radford, Ahles & Bell (1968: 798), Chamberlain (1982: 316).
Shrub 1–3 m, or rarely a small tree. Young branches finely pubescent.
Leaves elliptic or almost so to oval, 6.5–16 × 3.5–5cm, rounded to the
abruptly pointed apex, rounded or subcordate at the base, glabrous
throughout but with persistent hair-bases beneath and petiole
pubescent when young; length/breadth ratio up to 2.4. Inflorescence
dense, 15–20-flowered, appearing before the new leaves. Pedicels
usually glandular, always hairy with dendroid hairs. Calyx-lobes semiorbicular to broadly deltoid, much wider than long, 0.5–1.5mm.
24
J. Cullen
Corolla broadly campanulate, 3.0–5.0cm long, deep pink to purple,
rarely white or whitish, with faint spots. Ovary densely reddishtomentose, the surface not visible, rather rounded. Capsule more
elongate, tomentose.
distribution: USA (Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia).
Introduced to Britain in 1809 (Bean, 1976). This species is often
pollinated in the wild by hummingbirds. There are a few named
varieties of the species (e.g. var. compactum Hort.) and a few cultivars
directly attributable to the species, of which ‘Album’ (with large,
white flowers) and ‘Catalgla’ (a finer selection from ‘Album’) are most
widely grown.
Rhododendron macrophyllum G. Don
Hitchcock, Cronquist, Ownbey & Thompson (1959: 27), Munz (1959:
412), Hickman (1993: 566), Chamberlain (1982: 317).
Illustration: Botanical Magazine, t.4863 (1855), as R. californicum.
= R. californicum Hook.
Shrub to 5m high, with stout, coarse shoots, which are tomentose
when young. Leaves leathery, dark green above, paler beneath,
oblong-obovate to elliptic, 6–20 × 3–6cm; length/breadth ratio 2.8
or more, apex acute, base tapered. Petioles stout. Pedicels glabrous or
sparsely glandular. Inflorescence dense, congested, many-flowered,
appearing before the new leaves. Calyx-lobes broader than long, c.
1mm. Corolla broadly campanulate, 2.5–4cm, rose to rose-purple
or rarely white. Ovary densely reddish-tomentose, the surface not
visible, rather rounded. Capsule elongate, tomentose.
distribution:
USA (California, Oregon, Washington), Canada (British
Columbia).
Introduced to Britain in 1850 (Bean, 1976). This species is essentially a
western vicariant of R. catawbiense. It was introduced rather late, and
its contribution to the British hybrid swarm is uncertain.
25
The hybrid swarm
As mentioned above, there seems no possibility of recognising any
kind of taxonomic units within the British stands. The only possibility
is for proper taxonomic recognition of the hybrid as one variable
entity, a name and description of which is provided below.
Rhododendron × superponticum Cullen
Parentage: R. ponticum L. × R. catawbiense Michx., R. maximum L. et/
vel R. macrophyllum G. Don
A R. pontico L. habitu fortissimo et late invadenti differt; in plantarum
aggregatione qualibet inveniantur specimina notis characteristicis
peculiaribus R. catawbiensis Michaux (foliorum apicibus basibusque
rotundatis; foliis minus quam 2.4plo longioribus quam latioribus;
pedicellis pilos dendroideos ferentibus), R. maximi L. (floribus
minoribus (2–3cm), magis roseis; calyce lobum ut minimum unum
3.5mm longum vel longiorem, longiorem quam latiorem, ligulatum
praebente) vel R. macrophylli G. Don (pedicellis sparsissime glandulosis
vel glabris).
Differs from wild R. ponticum (see description above) in that it is
extremely vigorous and invasive and has a wider range of corolla and
corolla-spot colour. In any stand of the plant there will be individual
specimens that show individual characteristics of R. catawbiense (leaf
apices and bases rounded, leaf length/breadth ratio less than 2.4,
pedicels bearing dendroid hairs, ovary reddish brown tomentose),
R. maximum (flowers smaller: 2–3cm, pinker, calyx with at least 1 lobe
3.5mm or more, longer than broad, strap-shaped) or R. macrophyllum
(pedicels very sparsely glandular to glabrous).
An extremely vigorous shrub; sometimes tightly growing and small
(to 1 m), generally in drier situations, otherwise up to 6m and rather
open in growth.
Leaves evergreen, hairy when young, glabrous when mature, though
often with punctae persisting beneath, dark green above, pale green
or brownish beneath. narrowly elliptic to obovate, gradually tapered
to base and apex (rarely rounded to both apex and base), 9.5–15(–
21) × 3.0–4.0cm, length/breadth ratio 2.8–4.0 (occasionally less than
26
J. Cullen
2.4). Inflorescence up to 14-flowered, pyramidal, the pedicels and
rhachis elongating during the life of the inflorescence, the branches
spreading; developing before the new leaves. Rhachis glabrous to
finely silky-hairy to glandular. Pedicels generally glandular-sticky, often
densely so, sometimes with simple hairs as well, especially towards the
top (occasionally with dendroid hairs as well) or occasionally glabrous.
Bud-scales (bracts & bracteoles): densely hairy, often dendroid,
quickly deciduous. Calyx 0.5–2(–3.5)mm (rarely 3.5–7mm), 5-lobed,
the lobes flattened-triangular or rarely 1 or more of them developing a
strap-shaped apex, greenish or pale. Corolla 3–4.5cm, variable, rosepink to pale or pinkish purple to deep purple, with orange, yellow or
greenish spots on the upper lobe; lobes as long as, or longer than
the tube. Stamens 10, each filament with dense, cellophane-like hairs
forming a patch towards the base. Ovary cylindric-conical, dark green,
brown or almost black, truncate or sometimes rounded at the apex,
glabrous or with few or many simple, white bristles (often mainly
found towards the base), the surface clearly visible between them
(rarely tomentose or tomentose-glandular with the ovary surface not
visible). Style inserted in a depression in the top of the ovary. Capsule
ripening late, woody, glabrous or occasionally with some bristles
(rarely hairy).
Holotype: UK, Wales, Cardiganshire (v.c. 46), naturalised in mixed
estate woodland E of river 450m N of Trawsgoed mansion, alt. 55 m,
23 v 2006, Chater 06/41 (CGE).
Paratypes: UK, Wales, Cardiganshire (v.c. 46), Aberystwyth, estate
woodland behind Plas Penglais, alt. 70 m, 22/595821, 27 v 2001,
Chater 01/116 (CGE) – shows characters of R. catawbiense (leaves with
rounded apices and bases, length/breadth ratio 2.2); Cardiganshire
(v.c. 46), Llanerchaeron, naturalised in estate woodland, alt. 40 m,
22/48016020, 22 v 2006, Chater 06/34 (CGE) – shows characters of
R. maximum (smallish flowers, calyx-lobes longer than broad, strapshaped, 4–7mm).
It has been necessary to choose a holotype and paratypes to cover at
least some of the variation shown by the taxon.
27
Acknowledgements
I am extremely grateful to Arthur Chater (Aberystwyth) for suggesting
this study, for dealing with the BSBI County Recorders, and for making
the major contribution to the specimens collected. I am also very
grateful to the other collectors who sent in material or reports on stands:
Mr R. W. Ellis (Norfolk), Mr R. Findlay (Surrey), Mr P. Green (Dublin),
Mr E. Greenwood (Gayton), Ms P. Hayward (Yelverton), Mr P. Jackson
(Snowdonia National Park), Dr H. McHaffie (Edinburgh), Dr A. C. Leslie
(Cambridge), Mrs J. F. Leslie (Guildford), Mr R. Lister (Beaconsfield),
Mr D. McKean (Edinburgh), Mr I. K. Morgan (Carmarthen), Mr
J. Partridge (Cheltenham), Professor C. D. Pigott (Cartmel), Mr P. Smith
( New Ross), Dr B. Sumner (Penicuik) and Mr S. Woodward (Leicester).
Details of all these collections and stands are available from the author
([email protected]). I am also grateful to Dr R. Milne (Edinburgh) who
was kind enough to send me photocopies of parts of his PhD thesis,
to Mr P. Oswald (Cambridge) for help with the Latin translation of the
diagnosis on p. 25, to Professor John Parker (Cambridge) for helpful
discussion of the whole problem, to Dr A. C. Leslie for lists of relevant
cultivars, and to Suzanne Cubey (RBG Edinburgh) for help with finding
the relevant literature.
References
Argent, G. C. G. (2006). Rhododendrons of Subgenus Vireya. London:
Royal Horticultural Society.
Anşin, R. & Terzioğlu. (1994). Mor Çiçekli Orman Gülü’nün yeni
bir varyetesi (Rhododendron ponticum L. subsp. ponticum var.
heterophyllum Anşin, var. nova). (New variety of Rhododendron
ponticum L. (Rhododendron ponticum L. subsp. ponticum var.
heterophyllum Anşin var. nova).) Turkish Journal of Agriculture &
Forestry 18: 137–140.
Bean, W. J. (1976), Trees and Shrubs Hardy in the British Isles, edn 8, 3.
London: John Murray.
Castroviejo, S. et al. (1993). Flora Iberica 4. Madrid: Real Jardín
Botánico.
Chamberlain, D. F. (1982). Revision of Rhododendron II, Notes from
the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh 39: 209–486.
Clapham, A. R., Tutin, T. G. & Moore, D. M. (1987). Flora of the British
Isles, edn 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28
J. Cullen
Clement, E. J. & Foster, M. C. (1994). Alien Plants of the British Isles.
London: BSBI.
Cox, P. & Hutchinson, P. (1963). Rhododendrons in North-Eastern
Turkey. Rhododendron & Camellia Yearbook 17: 64–67.
Cross, J. R. (1975). Biological Flora of the British Isles. Rhododendron
ponticum L., J. Ecol. 63: 345–364.
Cullen, J. (2005). Hardy Rhododendrons: a Guide to Identification.
Portland, Oregon: Timber Press.
Dehnen-Schmutz, K. & Williamson, M. (2006). Rhododendron
ponticum in Britain and Ireland: Social, Economic and Ecological
factors in its successful invasion. Environment and History 12: 325–
350.
Fedde, F. (1909). Papaveraceae. In: Engler, A. (ed), Das Pflanzenreich
40 (IV.104): 294–301. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.
Fernald, M. L. (1950). Gray’s Manual of Botany, edn 8. New York:
American Book Company.
Franchet, A. (1884–1888). Plantae Davidianae. Paris: G. Masson.
Franchet, A. (1889–1890). Plantae Delavayanae. Paris: Paul Klinksieck.
Hickman, J. C. (ed) (1993). The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of
California. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hitchcock, C. L., Cronquist, A. R., Ownbey, M. & Thompson,
J. W. (1959). Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest 4. Seattle:
University of Washington Press.
Hooker, J. D. (1849–1851). Rhododendrons of the Sikkim Himalaya.
London: Reeve & Co.
Ingram, C. (1931). Rhododendron ponticum in Portugal, Gardeners’
Chronicle 89: 371–372.
Leach, D. G. (1962). Rhododendrons of the World. London: Allen &
Unwin.
McLean, B. (1997). A Pioneering Plantsman. London: Stationery
Office.
McLean, B. (2004). George Forrest. Woodbridge: Antique Collectors’
Club.
Milne, R. & Abbott, R. (2000). Origin and evolution of invasive
naturalized material of Rhododendron ponticum L. in the British Isles,
Molecular Ecology 9: 541–556.
Munz, P. (1959). A California Flora. Berkeley & Los Angeles University
of California Press.
29
Popova, T. N. (1972). Rhododendron. In: Tutin, T. G. et al. (eds) Flora
Europaea 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Preston, C., Pearman, D. A. & Dines, T. D. (2002). New Atlas of the
British and Irish Flora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E. & Bell, C. R. (1968). Manual of the Vascular
Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press.
Sales, F. (1996). Rhododendron ponticum L.: phytogeography, taxonomy
and nomenclature, 167–193. In: Öztürk, M., Seçmen, Ö. & Görk, G.,
Plant Life in Southwest and Central Asia. Izmir: Ege University Press.
Sampaio, G. (1947). Flora Portuguesa, edn 2. Lisbon: Imprensa
Moderna.
Small, J. K. (1933). Manual of the Southeastern Flora. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
Standish [J.] & Noble [C.]. (1850). A Chapter in the History of Hybrid
Rhododendrons. Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society 5: 271–
275.
Stevens, P. F. (1978). Rhododendron, in: Davis, P. H., Flora of Turkey 6.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Stevenson. J. B. (ed.). (1930). The Species of Rhododendron, edn 2.
London: The Rhododendron Society.
Valdés, B., Talavera, S. & Fernández-Galiano, E. (1987). Flora
vascular de Andalucía Oriental 1. Barcelona: Ketres Editora.
Willkomm, M. & Lange, J. (1870). Prodromus Florae Hispanicae 2.
Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart.
30
Hanburyana 5: 30–32 (2011)
A short note on the names of primary hybrids in
Rhododendron section Pontica
J. C. David
Following the proposal of a hybrid epithet for the complex hybrid
of R. ponticum, it was clear that it would be useful to list the names
available for the primary hybrids in this group. The list below has been
drawn principally from information provided by Schneider (1912) and
Rehder (1949).
Rhododendron × intermedium Wender., Flora 9: 337 (1826).
Parentage: Rhododendron maximum × R. ponticum.
Note: R. × intermedium Tausch (1836) was described for the hybrid
R. ferrugineum × R. hirsutum, for which the correct name is R. × halense
Gremblich (1875) according to Rehder (1949). The name R. × intermedium
Tausch has recently been used (DASIE, 2009) for an alien taxon in the
European flora, and it is likely that this is intended to refer to the hybrid
named by Wenderoth.
Rhododendron × morelianum Lem., L’Horticulteur Universel 4: 1 (1843).
Parentage: Rhododendron catawbiense × R. ponticum.
= Rhododendron robustissimum Lindl. ex Lemaire, Flore des Serres et des
jardins de l’Europe 2: 21, 1846, as “Rhododendron robustissimum
fastuosum flore pleno”.1
Rhododendron × sochadzeae Kharadze & Davlian., Zametki po
Sistematike i Geografii Rastenii 27: 84 (1969).
Parentage: Rhododendron caucasicum × R. ponticum.
Note: This hybrid was known in 19th-century literature as Rhodo
dendron “caucasicum hybridum” and the best-known example is the
cultivar ‘Cunningham’s White’, resulting from the cross R. caucasicum
1
Lemaire (l.c.) refers to an earlier publication by Lindley “Gardener’s
Chronicle, 23 mai 1846” but no trace of this name can be found in this
issue.
Primary hybrids in Rhododendron section Pontica
31
× R. ponticum album, but is not to be confused with R. × cunninghamii
T. Moore (R. maximum × R. arboreum).
Rhododendron × stanwellianum Methven ex Rehder, Manual of
Cultivated Trees & Shrubs: 683 (1927) [nomen subnudum, fide Rehder
(1949)].
Parentage: Rhododendron catawbiense × R. caucasicum.
Note: Rehder (1949: 505) cites “Hort. ex Millais” as the authority for
this name, but Millais (Rhododendrons 1: 247, 1917) lacks any description
and gives the parentage of the hybrid as “R. campanulatum × garden
hybrid”. However, the parentage stated by Rehder is supported in a note
by Sir Edmund Loder (Rhododendron Society Notes 1: 14, 1916) where
he comments, “Some years ago I bought in Edinburgh a quantity of
hybrids of Rhododendron caucasicum “Rh. Stanwellianum” = R. caucasicum
× R. catawbiense…”. The epithet commemorates Stanwell, the Edinburgh
nursery of Thomas Methven, who died in 1879 and which was continued
by his son, John, who died in 1913 (Desmond, 1994). Some catalogues
of T. Methren & Son are held in the library at the Royal Botanic Gardens
Edinburgh, and one for “Seedling and Transplanted Forest Trees,
Rhododendrons, Coniferae, ornamental trees, shrubs, fruit trees”, dated
1884, lists R. stanwellianum with the brief description “[flowers] vivid
crimson”. No parentage is stated. A further variety, album, is given as
“snowy white, compact habit, profuse bloomer, fine”.
This taxon is also known as Rhododendron Stanwellianum Group under
the provisions of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated
Plants (Brickell et al., 2009; Leslie, 2004).
Rhododendron × wellesleyanum Waterer ex Rehder, Manual of
Cultivated Trees and Shrubs: 683 (1927) [nomen subnudum, fide
Rehder (1949)].
Parentage: Rhododendron catawbiense × R. maximum.
Note: The hybrid was originally sold by the Waterer Knap Hill
nursery from around 1880. This taxon is also known as Rhododendron
‘Wellesleyanum’ under the provisions of the International Code of
Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (Brickell et al., 2009; Leslie, 2004).
For ease of reference the following table is provided:
32
J. C. David
Table 1. Primary hybrids in Rhododendron section Pontica
R. catawbiense
R. caucasicum
R. maximum
R. ponticum
R. maximum
R. caucasicum
R. × morelianum
R. × wellesleyanum
R. × stanwellianum
R. × sochadzeae
[no epithet]
R. × intermedium
It is interesting to note that while R. macrophyllum (syn. R. californicum)
has been in cultivation since 1850, there are apparently no primary
crosses with other members of section Pontica recorded or named.
References
Brickell, C. D., Alexander, C., David, J. C., Hetterscheid, W. L. A.,
Leslie, A. C., Malecot, V., Jin, X., & Cubey, J. J. (2009). International
Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, edn 8. Scripta
Horticulturae 10: i–xix, 1–184.
DASIE (2009). Handbook of Alien Species in Europe. Springer Verlag.
Desmond, R. (1994). Dictionary of British & Irish Botanists and
Horticulturists. London: Taylor & Francis and Natural History
Museum.
Leslie, A. C. (2004). International Rhododendron Checklist and Register.
London: RHS.
Rehder, A. (1949). Bibliography of Cultivated Trees and Shrubs.
Massachusetts: The Arnold Arboretum.
Schneider, C. K. (1912). Illustriertes Handbuch der Laubholzkunde, 2
[Rhododendron pp. 470–509]. Jena: Verlag von Gustav Fischer.
Hanburyana 5: 33–36 (2011) 33
A new combination in Oxalis laciniata Cav.
J. M. H. Shaw
c/o RHS Garden Wisley, Woking, Surrey GU23 6QB
In a previous paper (Shaw, 2009) O. squamoso-radicosa was reduced
to synonymy under O. laciniata, although O. squamosa-radicosa
var. pubescens Skottsberg was left untreated, largely because it was
dismissed by Lourteig (1988, 2000).
Following extensive field work in Patagonia over several years by Chris
Brickell, Peter Erskine and Martin Sheader, new information is now
available to clarify the position of this variety. The latter’s field notes
are provided as an Appendix to this paper.
The original description of var. pubescens provided in Skottsberg (1916)
was as follows: “Folia hirsuta. Pedunculus superne pubescens. Calyx
albolanatus. Petala azureo-violacea, margine puberula. Cetera ut in
typo.” This may be translated as, “Leaves hirsute. Upper part of flower
stalks pubescent. Calyx with long white hairs. Petals blue-violet, shortly
hairy along margins. Other characters as the typical variety.”
Far from occurring at random through out the range of O. laciniata,
plants that match this description are restricted to a very limited area in
north-west Santa Cruz province, Argentina, and neighbouring Chile,
forming an island within the distribution of O. laciniata var. laciniata.
This distribution covers 197km north to south by only some 30km
east to west and includes the type locality given by Skottsberg. This
limited distribution is shared with at least two other species, notably
the most southern rosulate viola, Viola auricolor, and Adesmia ruizlealii. Until recently, this tiny rhizomatous legume had been recorded
on only one occasion at the type locality, Meseta del Lago Buenos
Aires, but it has since been found at all the localities where Oxalis
laciniata var. pubescens occurs.
There are a few records of typical O. laciniata to the north of Lago
Buenos Aires. Monte Zeballos forms the south-west corner of Meseta
34
J. M. H. Shaw
del Lago Buenos Aires. In the meseta centre and eastern part of the
meseta are typical O. laciniata. The steppe to the east as far as the
Atlantic coast has typical O. laciniata, as has the area to the south of
Río Capitán.
In cultivation plants of O. laciniata var. pubescens have set seed in
the absence of other plants to cross-pollinate with, indicating they
are self-compatible. This self-compatibility is not known in typical
var. laciniata. This biological difference in the breeding system provides
further evidence for the recognition of var. pubescens and therefore
the requisite combination is provided:
Oxalis laciniata Cav. var. pubescens (Skottsberg) J. M. H. Shaw comb.
nov.
Basionym: Oxalis squamoso-radicosa Steudel var. pubescens Skottsberg,
Kongl. Svenska Vetenskaps-akad. Handl. 56(5): 254 (1916).
Type: Argentina, Santa Cruz, Lago Pueyrredón-Posadas, by Río Tarde,
1050m, Skottsberg 21 Dec. 1908 (holotype UPS, isotype K!).
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Chris Brickell, Peter Erskine and Martin Sheader for
making their observations and notes available, for helpful discussions,
and encouragement to produce this note.
References
Lourteig, A. (1988). Oxalis. In: Correa, M. N., Flora Patagonica 5: 1–29.
INTA, Buenos Aires.
Lourteig, A. (2000). A revision of Oxalis L. subgeneros Monoxalis
(Small) Lourt., Oxalis y Trifidus Lourt., Bradea 7(2): 201–629.
Shaw, J. M. H. (2009). Notes on two South American Oxalis. Hanburyana
4: 17–22.
Skottsberg, C. (1916). Die Vegetationsverhältnisse längs der Cordillera
de los Andes s. von 41˚ S. Br. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Vegetation
in Chiloé, Westpatagonien, dem andinen Patagonien und Feuerland.
Kongl. Svenska Vetenskaps-akad. Handl. 56(5): 1–366.
35
Martin Sheader
A new combination in Oxalis laciniata Cav. Fig. 1. Oxalis laciniata var. pubescens from Pico Sur, Chile (top), Monte
Zeballos, Argentina (bottom left), and Río Capitán, Argentina (bottom
right).
36
J. M. H. Shaw
Appendix 1. Field notes on the occurrence of O. laciniata var.
pubescens
The following field notes have been kindly supplied by Martin
Sheader.
1. Ridge over Lago del Toro, Rio Capitan, Argentina (48 25.408S, 71
41.866W, 1094m). Not very common. A few specimens of O. laciniata
were found at lower altitude, though still with broad leaflets. (Together
with O. enneaphylla & O. loricata)
2. Perito Moreno National Park, Argentina (47 47 21.70S, 72 04
04.87W, 930m). Fairly common, again with non-hairy, broad leaflet
plants. Rhizome often up to twice width of typical O. laciniata.
(Together with O. loricata)
3. Monte Zeballos Pass, Argentina (47 00 18.17S, 71 48 08.22W,
1400-1660m). Common. No typical O. laciniata present. (Together
with O. loricata & O. adenophylla)
4. Pico Sur, Chile Chico, Chile (46 39.501S, 71 44.991W, 1000-1136m).
Common. No typical O. laciniata present. (Together with O. loricata
& O. adenophylla).
Hanburyana 5: 37–46 (2011) 37
Nomenclature of intergeneric hybrids of Zephyranthes
J. C. David
RHS Garden Wisley, Woking, Surrey, GU23 6QB
It is well known that many species in different genera in the
Amaryllidaceae are capable of being hybridised and will produce
viable progeny. Although these bigeneric hybrids do rarely occur
in the wild, they are more often generated by horticulturists and,
as such, these hybrids are customarily published in the horticultural
literature. This means that the published names not infrequently do
not meet the requirements of the ICBN for valid publication and even
more confusion has been caused when later authors have attempted
to correct these errors. Some botanists today take the view that
too many genera are recognised in the Amaryllidaceae, and their
separation based on differences in floral morphology only reflects
pollination syndromes which are often polyphyletic in origin and do
not represent monophyletic groups. This is supported not only by the
molecular phylogeny for the American Amaryllidaceae (Meerow et al.,
2000) but also by morphological studies (e.g. Arroyo-Leuenberger &
Leuenberger, 2009). However, since these names are available and
still widely used, it is thought helpful, for the horticultural literature at
least, to attempt to resolve some of the nomenclatural problems.
1. ×Cooperanthes Percy-Lanc. (1913) (Cooperia × Zephyranthes)
This nothogenus was introduced by Percy-Lancaster (1913)1 for the
hybrid which had been made by his father, Percy Lancaster, and
for which the parents were stated to be “Cooperia oberwetti” and
Zephyranthes robusta. This hybrid was named × Cooperanthes lancastrae
and was one of three crosses raised by Percy Lancaster: the others being
× Cooperanthes rosea (Cooperia drummondii × Zephyranthes carinata)
and × Cooperanthes ‘Sunset’ (Cooperia drummondii × Zephyranthes
andersonii). The plants raised from these crosses were subsequently
1
Born Sydney Percy Lancaster (1886–1972), son of Percy Joseph Lancaster
(d.1904), the author of the genus subsequently hyphenated his middle name
and surname, and this is how his name appears in Brummitt & Powell (1992).
38
J. C. David
lost and Percy-Lancaster created a set of new hybrids using a range of
species in Cooperia and Zephyranthes (Percy-Lancaster, 1913). Father
and son carried out their work in India, the latter during his long
period of service as Secretary to the Royal Agricultural and Horticultural
Society of India, based in Alipore and subsequently working for the
National Botanical Gardens at Lucknow (Khoshoo, 1976).
The genus Cooperia Herb. (1836) has more recently been merged
with Zephyranthes Herb. (1821) (Traub, 1951), the latter having
precedence and, as such, the nothogenus × Cooperanthes is also
reduced to synonymy with Zephyranthes. However, based on the actual
parents cited, the included nothospecies cannot all be transferred to
Zephyranthes.
(i) × Cooperanthes lancastrae (also frequently given as “lancasterae”)
The first parent cited is “Cooperia oberwetti”, which is not a formally
published valid name, although it is cited as Cooperia oberwetteri Hort.
in the Kew Hand-list of Tender Monocotyledons: 129, 1897. This is almost
certainly the correct form of the name, as it would seem to be named
after Peter Henry Oberwetter (1830–1915), from Austin, Texas, who
was known to have collected and introduced amaryllids (Hall, 1935).
This entity is now treated as a synonym of Cooperia drummondii Herb.
which, when transferred to Zephyranthes, is known as Z. chlorosolen
(Herb.) Dietr. as there already is a separate species Zephyranthes
drummondii D. Don (1836). The second parent, Zephyranthes robusta, is
now treated in the genus Habranthus, where it was originally described
by Herbert (1830), which would, theoretically, make Lancaster’s hybrid
a bigeneric cross between Zephyranthes (as Cooperia) and Habranthus,
were it not for the confusion in cultivation over the naming of plants
grown as H. robustus. This species is superficially similar to Zephyranthes
grandiflora Lindley and not infrequently the one is sold under the
other name. It is clear that this confusion has a long history and it
is highly probable that Percy Lancaster and Sydney Percy-Lancaster
were working with Z. grandiflora rather than H. robustus, a conclusion
suggested by Flagg & Florey (1976: 75) and also reached by Howard
(1990: 122). Remarkably, the required combination in Zephyranthes
has not been published:
Nomenclature of intergeneric hybrids of Zephyranthes 39
Zephyranthes × lancastrae (Percy-Lanc.) J. C. David comb. nov.
Basionym: × Cooperanthes lancastrae Percy-Lanc., J. Roy. Hort. Soc.
38: 531 (1913).
There was a brief description given by Percy-Lancaster (1913) which
is repeated in Percy-Lancaster (1958).1 From the description it may be
inferred that the peduncle was 12” (c.30cm) or more, stout; the ovary
was brownish green; the flower had an apple-green centre and yellowish
white tepals, “going off” into pinkish lilac. I have not been able to trace
an illustration of this hybrid, although in Percy-Lancaster (1958), two
types of × Cooperanthes flowers are depicted: a “large flowered type”
and a “Sydneya type”. The latter refers to the renaming by Traub (1954)
of × Cooperanthes lancastrae as × Sydneya lancast[er]ae (see below).
From this it would be possible to consider Percy-Lancaster (1958)
fig. 2 as representing something like Z. × lancastrae. Percy-Lancaster
(1922) divided the hybrids into two main types: those having Cooperia
drummondii as a parent (“C. D.”) that had erect flowers and those having
Zephyranthes as a parent (“Z. R.”) with semi-nodding flowers. He noted
that Lancasteri [sic] is of C. D. type, white or white shaded pink.
Similarly there is little reliable preserved material to help with resolving
the identity of the plants. Apart from the loss of the original hybrids
as recorded by Percy-Lancaster (1913), it appears that subsequently
much of the living collection was lost during the Second World War
when the bed containing the × Cooperanthes hybrids was crushed by
military trucks. What remained after the end of the war was carefully
nurtured back to life and transferred to the National Botanic Gardens
at Lucknow, but many of the best varieties were lost (Percy-Lancaster,
1958). In the herbarium at Kew, the earliest specimen is from Henry
Elwes and dates from 1919. It is evident that this must represent one
of the hybrids published in 1913 but in the absence of any further
evidence to confirm its precise identity, it cannot be used to secure
the interpretation of the name. Subsequently plants were sent to Kew
directly from India by A. P. Lancaster.2 These were evidently grown
1
The publication has no author, but internal evidence in the paper points to
Percy-Lancaster as the author.
2
Alick Percy-Lancaster, Sydney Percy-Lancaster’s son (Khoshoo, 1976).
40
J. C. David
on at Kew; the specimens preserved in the herbarium were collected
in 1939 and 1940. All the relevant Kew specimens are labelled as
Cooperanthes or Zephyranthes: no epithet is given. A further specimen
is labelled “× Cooperanthes hortensis (ined.)” and had been sent to
Kew from the Agri-Horticultural Society of India in 1949. The origin
of this hybrid is not recorded and the specimen does not resemble
the earlier ones.
Material in cultivation was available from Mike Salmon (Monocot
Nursery) up until 2005 and had also been listed by Paul Christian in
1997 (RHS Plant Finder 2005–2006 and 1996–1997). The former also
listed the cultivar ‘Mary’, which was among the first to be described
by Percy-Lancaster (see below).
A description is provided below of the material obtained from
Monocot Nursery:
Leaves linear, two or more per bulb, dark green with a slight reddish tint
and a glaucous bloom. Flowers solitary, borne on an erect peduncle
up to 13cm long, usually oriented along the axis of the peduncle,
not at an angle. Flower pedicel and bud enveloped by a spathe up to
50mm long, bifid but fused at the apex to leave a small gap below,
initially pinkish but later more straw-brown in colour. Flowers narrowly
trumpet-shaped, perianth segments 60–65mm, outer segments
overlapping, ovate, up to 18mm wide, inner segments narrowly ovate
up to 12mm wide, apex mucronate; perianth segments pale pink.
Flowers have a distinct but not sweet scent. Stamens reaching the
mouth of the perianth tube, not exserted, all of the same length;
anthers with deep-yellow pollen. Style is shorter than the stamens.
(ii) × Cooperanthes rosea Percy-Lanc. (1913)
The parents for this hybrid are given as Cooperia drummondii and
Zephyranthes carinata; the former species is now Z. chlorosolen and the
latter is a synonym of Z. grandiflora. As such, this is an interspecific hybrid
in Zephyranthes and since there is already a Z. rosea Lindley (1824), Traub
(1954) provided a nomen novum for the hybrid, Z. × lancasteri Traub.
However, it is most likely that this is the same hybrid as Z. × lancastrae,
and should be treated as a synonym of the latter.
(iii) × Cooperanthes ‘Sunset’
Since Percy-Lancaster did not give this hybrid a Latin name, it is
adopted here as a cultivar name under the ICNCP. The parents were
stated to be Cooperia drummondii and Zephyranthes andersonii. The
latter is now included in Habranthus, as a synonym of Habranthus
tubispathus. Traub (1954) introduced the new name × Sydneya india
for this hybrid. If the hybrid name were required it would need to be
recombined under × Zephybranthus T. M. Howard.
(iv) × Cooperanthes bella Percy-Lanc. (1913)
This is the first of the hybrids made by Percy-Lancaster using Cooperia
drummondii and Zephyranthes robusta as parents. Based on the parentage,
this entity is a synonym of × C. lancastrae, which was stated by Traub
(1954). Given the question over the identity of the parent Z. robusta
noted above, this too should be treated as a synonym of Z. × lancastrae.
(v) × Cooperanthes blanda Percy-Lanc. (1913)
Percy-Lancaster made use of Cooperia oberwetteri and Zephyranthes
treatiae to create this hybrid. With both parents belonging to
Zephyranthes, the hybrid is correctly known as Z. × blanda (PercyLanc.) Traub (1954).
(vi) × Cooperanthes ‘Alipore Beauty’
As with ‘Sunset’, since a non Latin name was used by Percy-Lancaster,
it is best treated as a cultivar name. The parents given are Cooperia
oberwetteri (Z. chlorosolen) and Z. robusta (probably Z. grandiflora),
and therefore the hybrid should be correctly known as Z. × lancastrae
‘Alipore Beauty’.
(vii) × Cooperanthes ‘Percy’
In this cross Percy-Lancaster used Zephyranthes citrina and Cooperia
drummondii as parents. Traub (1954) introduced the formal hybrid
name Z. × percyi for this cross.
(viii) × Cooperanthes ‘Mary’
With Cooperia drummondii and Zephyranthes robusta as parents of this
hybrid, this is another cross that should be assigned to Z. × lancastrae.
The correct name should be Z. × lancastrae ‘Mary’.
42
J. C. David
(ix) × Cooperanthes ‘Sydney’
This is the reverse cross of ‘Percy’ and could be designated as Z. × percyi
‘Sydney’; however, it is doubtful that this hybrid is still in existence.
A wild origin “Cooperanthes” from Mexico
For some time a Zephyranthes has been widely distributed in cultivation
under the cultivar name ‘La Buffa Rose’ but also under a range of
variants such as ‘Labuffarosa’, ‘Labuffarosea’ or ‘Labufaroseus’.
Howard (2001) referred to it as × Cooperanthes “Labufaroseus” and
commented on the correct form of the name.
These names have been used for plants derived from a natural
population discovered by Carl Schoenfeld and John Fairey (Yucca Do
Nursery, Texas, USA) near to San Carlos in Tamaulipas, Mexico. The
population occurs on an outcrop of granite through an underlying
bed of limestone with a unique flora. The first collection was made
on 4th July 1992, from a site at 4,000 feet, where the plants were
growing under Ilex rubra (Schoenfeld, pers. comm.). Schoenfeld has
observed the plants at this site to be variable in flower form, size, stem
height and pigmentation and has already named two clones from
the wild population (‘Lily Pies’, ‘Itsy Bitsy’). Further clones released in
2010 (‘Confection’, ‘Heart Throb’, ‘Summer’s Chill’, ‘Aperitif’ and ‘Star
Spangled’) have arisen in cultivation.
The natural population is widely considered to be hybrid in origin and
Howard (2001) states that the plant is intermediate between Cooperia
pedunculata (= Zephyranthes drummondii) and a native pink-flowered
species of Zephyranthes. Schoenfeld (pers. comm.) believes it to be a
triple hybrid between Z. drummondii, Z. traubii and an undescribed
pink-flowered species.
The correct form of the epithet is problematic. Both “Labuffarosea”
and “Labufaroseus” are Latin in form and therefore not acceptable
as names for plants under the ICNCP. The name is derived from the
locality whence the plants were collected but an Internet search for
the name indicates that it would be spelled with one “f” not two. This
has been confirmed by Carl Schoenfeld who notes that the locality
is called La Bufa del Diente in the Sierra Chiquita, south of the small
town of San Carlos. In view of the occurrence of a number of cultivars
attributable to this taxon, and in the absence of a suitable botanical
species or hybrid name, it is proposed to establish a Group epithet
for these plants, as Zephyranthes La Bufa Rosa Group, as agreed with
Carl Schoenfeld.
2. × Coobranthus T. M. Howard (1990) (Cooperia × Habranthus)
Howard (1990) did not accept the synonymisation of Zephyranthes
and Cooperia and consequently proposed the new bigeneric hybrid
× Coobranthus for hybrids between Cooperia and Habranthus. While
the nothogeneric name is valid, unfortunately the single species
he described, × Coobranthus coryi, is not, as the protologue lacks a
Latin diagnosis. This species is stated to be a natural hybrid between
Habranthus howardii and Cooperia pedunculata Herb. (= Zephyranthes
drummondii), which was collected in Mexico.
Howard (1990), despite having explained that one of the parents of
Z. × lancastrae is most likely to be Z. grandiflora, made the combination
of × Cooperanthes lancastrae into × Coobranthus but gave the epithet as
“lancasteri”. We can be certain that he was not referring to Traub’s
nom. nov. (see above under × C. rosea) as he clearly refers to × Sydneya
lancasterae immediately before making the combination and cites
Percy-Lancaster as the author of the basionym.
3. × Sydneya Traub (1954), nom. inval. (Zephyranthes × Habranthus)
Traub (1954) introduced the nothogeneric name × Sydneya for the
bigeneric hybrid Zephyranthes × Habranthus and cited × Cooperanthes
Lancaster as a synonym. The name × Sydneya is nomenclaturally invalid
(ICBN Art. H.6.2) as bigeneric hybrid names must be condensed
formulae of the parent genera, as noted by Howard (2001). Further,
× Cooperanthes cannot be a synonym in the strict sense as Habranthus
is not one of the parent genera. Traub (1958) subsequently made clear
that his approach was based on the concept of nothogenera having
types, which is contrary to the ICBN (H.9.1, Note 1). He had “typified”
× Cooperanthes on a later hybrid made by Percy-Lancaster, × C. blanda,
the cross between Cooperia oberwetteri and Zephyranthes treatiae
S. Watson, which Traub, who recognised that Cooperia is a synonym
of Zephyranthes, regarded as a species of Zephyranthes. He designated
44
J. C. David
× C. lancastrae as the “type” of his new genus × Sydneya, stating the
parents to be Z. brazosensis (the name Traub used for Z. chlorosolen)
and Habranthus tubispathus, an error he subsequently corrected
(Traub, 1958). Traub provided the combination × S. lancasterae (PercyLanc.) Traub, which Howard (1990) transferred to × Coobranthus,
taking Percy-Lancaster’s statement of the parentage (see above) at
face value.
× Sydneya bella (Percy-Lanc.) Traub (1959), nom. inval. Art. 43.1.
=Zephyranthes × lancastrae (Percy-Lanc.) J. C. David
× Sydneya castellanosii Traub (1958), nom. inval. Art. 43.1.
Parentage: Zephyranthes grandiflora × Habranthus juncifolius.
× Sydneya india Traub (1954), nom. inval. Art. 43.1.
Based on × Cooperanthes ‘Sunset’.
× Sydneya lancasterae (Percy-Lanc.) Traub, Plant Life 10: 47 (1954),
nom. inval. Art. 43.1 (as “lancastrae” in Traub (1959: 40)).
=Zephyranthes × lancastrae (Percy-Lanc.) J. C. David
× Sydneya morrisii Traub (1965), nom. inval. Art. 43.1.
Parentage: Habranthus immaculatus Traub & Clint × Zephyranthes bifolia
M. Roem. This name was previously also invalidly published by Clint
(1964).
4. ×Zephybranthus T. M. Howard (1990) (Zephyranthes × Habranthus)
This is the correct name for the bigeneric hybrid which is given as
“× Zebranthus” in Howard (2001). While Howard did not make any
combinations into this genus, he referred to an unnamed bigeneric
hybrid, Zephyranthes grandiflora × Habranthus teretifolia, previously
reported by Traub, although it has not proved possible to trace the
source of the report.
Two of Traub’s nothospecies in Sydneya belong here but being
invalidly published, they need to be validated as new species by direct
reference to the earlier publications of the names, which otherwise
fulfil all the requirements for valid publication:
× Zephybranthus castellanosii Traub ex J. C. David sp. nov.
= × Sydneya castellanosii Traub, Plant Life 14: 50 (1958), nom. inval.
× Zephybranthus morrisii Traub ex J. C. David sp. nov.
= × Sydneya morrisii Traub, Plant Life 21: 95 (1965), nom. inval.
As stated above, × Cooperanthes ‘Sunset’ would belong in this hybrid
genus.
5. × Sydneyara T. M. Howard (1990), as “Traub emend. Howard”.
Parentage: Zephyranthes × Cooperia × Habranthus.
Howard (1990) introduced this hybrid genus to allow for the
existence of hybrids where the genus Cooperia is regarded as distinct
from Zephyranthes. He did not provide an example or make any
combinations into the genus.
Acknowledgements
The research that led to this paper could not have been achieved
without access to the unique resources of the Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew (both the herbarium and the library) and of the Royal Horticultural
Society and it is my pleasure to acknowledge their support. I am also
grateful to Carl Max Schoenfeld of Yucca Do Nursery (Texas, USA) for
his freely sharing the information about the origin of the Zephyranthes
from La Bufa del Diente and enabling me to resolve the nature and
correct spelling of the name.
References
Arroyo-Leuenberger, S. & Leuenberger, B. E. (2009). Revision of
Zephyranthes andina (Amaryllidaceae) including five synonyms.
Willdenowia 39: 145–159.
Brummitt, R. K. & Powell, C. E. (1992). Authors of Plant Names. Kew:
RBG, Kew.
Clint, K. L. (1964). A new bigeneric hybrid – × Sydneya morrisii. Plant
Life 20: 74–75 + 34.
Flagg, R. O. & Florey, W. S. (1976). Origins of three Texas species of
Zephyranthes. Plant Life 32: 67–80.
Hall, C. W. (1935). Peter Henry Oberwetter, a Texas Amaryllid Pioneer.
Yearbook of the American Amaryllis Society 2: 101–102.
46
J. C. David
Hall, C. W. (1937). Amaryllidaceae. London: James Ridgway & Sons.
Herbert, W. (1830). Habranthus robustus. In: Sweet, Hortus Britannicus,
edn 2, 506. London: James Ridgway.
Herklots, G. A. C. (1980). Windflowers Part II: Habranthus. The
Plantsman 2: 90–99.
Howard, T. M. (1990). × Coobranthus coryi T. M. Howard. A natural
bigeneric hybrid of the tribe Zephyrantheae. Herbertia 46(2): 119–123.
Howard, T. M. (2001). Bulbs for Warm Climates. Austin, Texas:
University of Texas Press.
Khoshoo, T. N. (1976). Percy-Lancasters: Doyens in Indian Horticulture.
Plant Life 32: 19–22.
Meerow, A. W., Guy, C. L., Li, Q.-B. & Yang, S.-L. (2000). Phylogeny
of the American Amaryllidaceae based on nrDNA ITS sequences.
Systematic Botany 25: 708–726.
Percy-Lancaster, S. (1913). Bi-generic hybrids between Cooperia
and Zephyranthes produced at the Agricultural and Horticultural
Society’s gardens, Alipore, Calcutta. Journal of the Royal Horticultural
Society 38: 531–532.
Percy-Lancaster, S. (1922). Cooperanthes. Gardeners’ Chronicle 72:
66–67.
[Percy-Lancaster, S.] (1958). Cooperanthes and Zephyranthes. Bulletin
of the National Botanic Gardens, Lucknow 20: 1–32.
Traub, H. P. (1951). Amaryllid notes. Plant Life 7: 40–43.
Traub, H. P. (1954). Percy-Lancaster hybrids (Zephyranthes and
× Sidneya). Plant Life 10: 46–47.
Traub, H. P. (1958). Crosses involving Rhodophiala, Habranthus and
Zephyranthes. Plant Life 14: 47–51.
Traub, H. P. (1959). Hybrids in the tribe Zephyrantheae. Plant Life 15:
37–41.
Traub, H. P. (1965). Amaryllid notes, 1965. Plant Life 21: 95–96.
Hanburyana 5: 47–56 (2011) 47
Miscellaneous nomenclatural and taxonomic notes
mainly relating to cultivated plants
J. M. H. Shaw
c/o RHS Garden Wisley, Woking, Surrey GU23 6QB
1. Dichroa × Hydrangea (Hydrangeaceae)
Recent breeding work to develop Hydrangea cultivars in the USA
has included intergeneric crosses with Dichroa (Kardos et al., 2006).
Further work has revealed wild populations of this intergeneric cross
in the wild, and some of the variation within Dichroa is now thought
to be due to hybridisation with Hydrangea. Consequently a name is
provided for this cross.
× Didrangea J. M. H. Shaw nothogen. nov.
= Dichroa Lour. × Hydrangea L.
2. Disporopsis (Liliaceae sensu lato, Convallariaceae)
A Disporopsis endemic to the Philippines was originally described as
Disporum luzoniense Merrill. Subsequent studies (Kumar & Brandham,
1980; Saito, 2009) have confirmed the placement of this taxon in
Disporopsis. I concur with this, having examined an image of the isotype
(E. D. Merrill 6619, NY) and compared it with material in cultivation.
These and some other authors have followed the treatment provided
by Jessop (1979) for Flora Malesiana, which included Disporum luzoniense
as a synonym of Disporopsis fuscopicta Hance, a species based on a
collection from Guangdong Province, China (holotype: B. C. Henry s.n.
in Herb. Hance 22186, BM!). Jessop frequently employed very broad
species concepts in his revisions, which subsequent workers have found
necessary to modify. For example, Peliosanthes in Flora Malesiana (Jessop,
1976, 1979) is reduced to a single species, whereas currently about
18 species are recognised (Shaw, 2009). The Philippine plant exhibits
several characters that distinguish it from D. fuscopicta, most notably
the rhizome which is fleshy with elongated internodes, rather than
moniliform; anthers about 1mm long, as opposed to 2–2.5mm, and
corona lobes emarginated as opposed to emarginate to 2–3-dentate.
Consequently a new combination for this plant is provided.
48
J. M. H. Shaw
Disporopsis luzoniensis (Merrill) J. M. H. Shaw comb. nov.
Basionym: Disporum luzoniense Merrill, Philipp. J. Sci., 5 (Bot.): 338 (1910).
3. Disporum (Colchicaceae, formerly Convallariaceae)
Disporum ‘Green Giant’ is a vigorous selection by Dan Hinkley forming
thickets to 2m high, widely available in the USA and UK and usually
attributed to D. cantoniense, under which it is listed in the RHS Plant
Finder 2010–2011. Examination of the original stock in Hinkley’s
garden reveals that ‘Green Giant’ was originally a selection from
D. longistylum (H. Lév. & Vaniot) H. Hara. A specimen collected from
Hinkley’s garden (B. Wynn-Jones s.n., 2008) is here designated as a
nomenclatural standard and has been deposited at wsy.
Disporum ‘Night Heron’, another Hinkley selection, is also better
placed under D. longistylum.
D. longistylum can easily be distinguished from D. cantoniense.
D. cantoniense produces mostly pseudolateral inflorescences, in which
the flowers are terminal on a short lateral branchlet opposite a leaf, and
the tepals longer than the stamens, so that they are included, whereas
D. longistylum produces flowers in a truly terminal inflorescence at the
apex of a stem or branch, with tepals, 1–1.4cm long, shorter than
stamens, so that the stamens are exserted.
Plants in cultivation as D. megalanthum are also usually D. longistylum.
Genuine D. megalanthum may be distinguished from D. longistylum by
stamens shorter than or equalling tepals which are 2–3.5cm long.
Disporum cantoniense (Lour.) Merr. is a variable species treated in
depth by Hara (1988), who recognised four geographical races, two
of which are island races. On the Asian mainland var. cantoniense
with the tepals usually 1–2cm long is widespread, but in populations
endemic to Sikkim, plants producing greenish white tepals, 2–3.2cm
long, have been distinguished as var. sikkimense H. Hara. A fine colour
plate is provided in Noltie (1994). Populations studied in the north
of Vietnam around Y-Ti, in Lao Cai Province, produce flowers with
tepals that are longer still, attaining 3.7cm, although they are not as
broad as var. sikkimense. The flowers are borne on peduncles 2–3cm
Miscellaneous nomenclatural and taxonomic notes 49
Bleddyn Wynn-Jones
Fig. 1. Disporum
cantoniense var. y-tiense.
long, tepals are dark brownish red-purple, oblanceolate, around 4mm
wide with an acuminate apex, keeled midrib, and green at the short,
saccate base; anthers 4–4.5mm long, stamens 1.8cm long. This also
contrasts with var. cantoniense in which the tepals are 1–2cm long,
stamens 8–10mm and peduncles usually very short.
Since these wild populations consistently produce flowers with larger
parts they are here formally named as a new variety.
Disporum cantoniense var. y-tiense B. Wynn-Jones, V. D. Nguyen &
J. M. H. Shaw var. nov.
A var. sikkimensi H. Hara tepalis fuscis purpuratis, ad 3.7mm longis,
antheris 4–4.5mm longis, staminibus 1.8cm longis differt.
50
J. M. H. Shaw
Holotype: Cultivated at Crûg Farm, N. Wales, B. Wynn-Jones s.n., 2008
(WSY), from original collection: WWJ 11958. Y-Ti, Lao Cai Province,
northern Vietnam.
4. Glandularia (Verbenaceae)
Umber (1979) reviewed the North American species of Glandularia
and provided a detailed investigation supporting its separation from
Verbena, wherein these species have been treated as section Glandularia
Schauer. Since then the garden hybrid Verbena × hybrida has also
been transferred to Glandularia (Pruski & Nesom, 1992). Since the
fifth edition of the RHS Encyclopaedia of Plants and Flowers (Brickell,
2010: 589) recognises Glandularia as distinct from Verbena and
combinations now exist in Glandularia for all the accepted species
and hybrids with the exception of the following cultivated hybrid, the
requisite combination is here provided.
Glandularia × maonettii (Regel) J. M. H. Shaw comb. et stat. nov.
Basionym: Verbena tenera var. maonettii Regel, Gartenflora 4: 26, t.142
(1855).
= Verbena tenera var. maonettii Planchon, Flore des Serres 2nd ser. 11:
115–116, t.1129 (1856).
To assist recognition of cultivars belonging to this hybrid, and
distinguish them from G. × hybrida, it may be helpful to note that
plants of Glandularia × maonettii produce flowers with a pattern of
radiating alternate white and coloured stripes on the corolla.
5. Hedychium (Zingiberaceae)
While reviewing the names of hybrid Hedychium, it came to light that
there are valid binomials available for several garden hybrids.
The name H. × wilkeanum W. Wats., Gard. Chron. 3rd ser., 16(2): 276
(1894), is available for the cross H. coronarium × H. gardnerianum.
Dr Charles Nelson kindly drew my attention to another overlooked
name, H. × moorei in Gard. Chron. 28: 142 (1900), commemorating
a past Director of the Botanic Garden at Glasnevin, F. W. Moore.
This name has sufficient description to be accepted as valid under
the ICBN, and has since been listed in the International Plant
Names Index (www.ipni.org). It applies to the hybrid H. coccineum
× H. gardnerianum. There are several different names used for plants
in cultivation, the most common being ‘Tara’, which originated from
wild-collected seed, and was originally listed under H. coccineum
(Schilling, 1982). Since then, in consultation with Chris Brickell and
Tony Schilling, the consensus of opinion is that ‘Tara’ represents this
hybrid. ‘Tara’ received both an AM in 1978 and an FCC in 1984.
Other plants apparently assignable to H. × moorei include:
H. ‘Kewense’, originally said to be this hybrid, probably selected by
Charles P. Raffill, one-time Assistant Curator at Kew, and like ‘Tara’
regarded as H. coccineum by some. Branney (2005) points out that
this epithet is commonly misapplied to another Hedychium with pink
flowers.
H. ‘Raffillii’, syn. H. × raffillii, H. ‘C.P. Raffill’. Another plant originating
from Kew, and awarded an AM in 1941. According to the ICBN Art.
36.1, a Latin diagnosis became mandatory from 1st January 1935,
hence the name H. × raffillii is invalid as it was described only in English
in 1941. On the other hand, under ICNCP Art. 21.5 & 6, a Latin name
published prior to 1st January 1959 is acceptable as a cultivar epithet,
regardless of validity under the ICBN. Hence, as a cultivar epithet,
‘Raffillii’ is valid and has priority over the superfluous replacement
name ‘C.P. Raffill’.
One point that all these have in common is their similarity with
H. coccineum, which has resulted in their being treated under that
species at various times.
6. Ligularia (Asteraceae)
It has been noticed that accessions of Ligularia fischeri (Ledeb.) Turcz.
from Cheju-do, an island off the southern tip of the Korean peninsula,
differ from collections from elsewhere in its range by developing
large swollen tuberous roots. Plants have been distributed under the
cultivar name ‘Cheju Charmer’. This variant is apparently endemic to
Cheju Island, and is accordingly formally described here as a variety.
52
J. M. H. Shaw
Ligularia fischeri var. megalorhiza B. Wynn-Jones & J. M. H. Shaw
var. nov.
A var. fischeri radicibus tumidis et tuberantibus differt.
Holotype: Cultivated plant at Crûg Farm, N. Wales. Wynn-Jones &
Shaw s.n., 31 Aug 2007 (WSY), from original collection: BSWJ 1158,
Cheju Island, Korea.
7. Plectranthus (Lamiaceae)
There is a widespread, though uncommon, plant grown under the
misapplied name Plectranthus amboinicus. It is illustrated under that
name in Sajeva & Costanzo (1994) and Shaw (1999a: 73, illustr. on
left-hand side), and has also been listed in nursery catalogues as
Coleus aromaticus, which is a synonym of P. amboinicus. The plant is
vegetatively propagated with ease, and originated as a field collection
made by the late Werner Rauh of Heidelberg, between Normanga and
Litokitok, Kenya, close to the border with Tanzania, an area relatively
well collected. It has since been distributed by International Succulent
Introductions of Huntington Botanic Gardens, USA, as ISI 1316, which
accounts for it being seen in succulent plant nurseries.
The plant has a very characteristic neat appearance, with small, almost
circular leaves, distinctive aroma, variously described as camphor or
petrol, and hardly ever flowers, hence its confusion with P. amboinicus,
a much more robust, square-stemmed, larger-leaved plant. Following
an unusually sunny period a few years ago the author’s plant flowered,
and material was taken to Alan Paton at Kew, where it was retained in
the herbarium at his request. One unusual feature is the presence of
round foliar organs, like the cauline leaves, in the inflorescence. It was
not a close match for anything in the herbarium, but by a process of
elimination was determined to belong to P. cylindraceus. Since then,
P. cylindraceus Benth., typified on African material, has been shown
to be a synonym of P. montanus Benth., typified by a collection from
Peninsular India (Suddee & Paton, 2004). Despite its rather distinctive
appearance, ISI 1316 has the same distinctive scent as P. montanus,
which is still generally known as P. cylindraceus in cultivation. Plants
grown under this name are well illustrated in van Jaarsveld (2006: 81),
wherein they can also be compared with P. amboinicus. This unusual
variant, ISI 1316, is not mentioned in the recent Flora of Tropical East
Table 1. References to Podophyllum in Plants of Mount Emei (Li & Shi, 2007)
Name in Li & Shi Name accepted in
this account
Page in text
Dysosma veitchii
P. delavayi
Dysosma veitchii
var. longipetalis 1
Dysosma difformis
Dysosma majoensis
var. emeiensis
Dysosma versipellis
P. delavayi
var. longipetalum
P. difforme
P. emeiense
108, 257 (also as 108
D. majoensis)
45, 257–258, 484 Not illustrated
257
45, 257, 484
P. versipelle subsp. boreale 68, 258
var. sichuanense
Illustration
Not illustrated
Not illustrated
68
1
Note that D. veitchii var. longipetalis (2007) is a heterotypic synonym of P. delavayi
var. longipetalum (1999).
Africa account of Lamiaceae (Paton, 2009). It is here assigned the
cultivar name ‘Werner Rauh’ and the specimen at K (Shaw, s.n., 2002,
inflorescence from cultivated plant) is designated as a nomenclatural
standard.
8. Podophyllum (Berberidaceae)
A Podophyllum known to be endemic to Emei Shan, in Sichuan, China
has been included in earlier treatments as an undescribed species:
Podophyllum sp. B. New Plantsman 7(3): 158 (2000) and Podophyllum
sp. A, J. M. H. Shaw in Stearn, W. T., The Genus Epimedium: 297–298
(2002). It was subsequently described under Dysosma in a Chinese
publication (Li & Shi, 2007) and therefore a new combination is here
provided under Podophyllum.
Podophyllum emeiense (J. L. Wu & P. Zhuang) J. M. H. Shaw comb.
et stat. nov.
Basionym: Dysosma majoensis (Gagnep.) M. Hiroe var. emeiensis J. L. Wu
& P. Zhuang, Pl. Mt. Emei: 484 (2007).
= Dysosma emeiensis J. L. Wu & P. Zhuang, J. Wuhan Bot. Res. 11(1):
41–46 (1993) nom. inval. Art. 32.1.
Plants of Mount Emei (Li & Shi, 2007) is a catalogue of the flora of
Emei Shan with special reference to endemic taxa, many of which are
54
J. M. H. Shaw
Fig. 2. Podophyllum emeiense; unpublished illustration provided by Ping
Zhuang. 1. Rhizome. 2. Aerial stem with inflorescence. 3. Flower with
petals and sepals removed. 4. Inner sepal. 5. Outer sepal. 6. Petal. 7.
Stamen. 8. Underside of leaf lobe apex.
illustrated with high-quality colour images. As there is no detailed
index and the pages of colour plates are unnumbered, although
they are interspersed with text pages and continue the pagination
sequence, details of where Podophyllum references may be found are
given in Table 1 (p. 53).
Those working with the Flora of Emei Shan may wish to use the key to
Podophyllum of Emei Shan in the New Plantsman (Shaw, 1999b) which
has been successfully field-tested by Mikinori Ogisu.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude for help and advice from the
following people who have facilitated items above.
Christopher Brickell (ACONAT1), Charles Nelson (ACONAT), Nguyen
Van Du (Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Hanoi,
Vietnam), Alan Paton (RBG Kew), Tony Schilling, Bleddyn Wynn-Jones
(Crûg Farm Plants), P. Zhuang (Natural Products Research Institute,
Chengdu, China).
References
Branney, T. M. E. (2005). Hardy Gingers. Portland & Cambridge: RHS/
Timber Press.
Brickell, C. (2010). RHS Encyclopaedia of Plants and Flowers, edn 5.
London: Dorling Kindersley.
Jaarsveld, E. van (2006) The Southern African Plectranthus. Simon’s
Town, South Africa: Fernwood Press.
Jessop, J. P. (1976). A revision of Peliosanthes. Blumea 23: 141–159.
Jessop, J. P. (1979). Liliaceae 1. In: van Steenis, C. G. G. J. (ed.), Flora
Malesiana 9(1): 189–235. The Netherlands: Sijthoff & Noordhoff.
Kardos, J. H., Robacker, C. D., Dirr, M. A., Rinehart, T. A. (2006).
Production and verification of hybrids for Hydrangea macrophylla
× H. angustipetala and H. macrophylla × Dichroa febrifuga. Southern
Nursery Association Research Conference 51: 570–572.
Kumar, V. & Brandham, P. E. (1980). Cytotaxonomy of Disporum
luzoniense. Kew Bulletin 35(3): 493–497.
1
The RHS Advisory Committee on Nomenclature and Taxonomy.
56
J. M. H. Shaw
Li, Zhen-Yu, & Shi, Lei, (eds). (2007). Plants of Mount Emei. Beijing:
Science & Technology Press.
Noltie, H. J. (1994). Flora of Bhutan, 3, pt.1. Edinburgh: RBG
Edinburgh.
Paton, A. (2009). Plectranthus. In: Beentje, H. J. & Ghazanfar, S. A. (eds),
Flora of Tropical East Africa: Lamiaceae. London: RBG Kew.
Pruski, J. F. & Nesom, G. L. (1992). Glandularia × hybrida, a new
combination for a common horticultural plant. Brittonia 44(4):
494–496.
Sajeva, M. & Costanzo, M. (1994). Succulents, the Illustrated Dictionary.
London: Cassell.
Saito, Y., Iwashina, T., Peng, C.-I. & Kokubugata, G. (2009).
Taxonomic reconsideration of Disporum luzoniense (Liliaceae s.l.)
using flavonoid characters. Blumea 54: 59–62.
Schilling, A. (1982). A survey of cultivated Himalayan and SinoHimalayan Hedychium species. The Plantsman 4(3): 129–149.
Shaw, J. M. H. (1999a). Notes on the identity of Swedish Ivy and other
cultivated Plectranthus. New Plantsman 6(2): 71–74.
Shaw, J. M. H. (1999b). New taxa, combinations and taxonomic notes
on Podophyllum. New Plantsman 6(3): 158–165.
Shaw, J. M. H. (2009). A new Peliosanthes in cultivation. The Plantsman
8(4): 248–249.
Suddee, S. & Paton, A. (2004). Some nomenclatural changes in
South East Asian Lamiaceae. Kew Bulletin 59: 315–318.
Umber, R. E. (1979). The genus Glandularia in North America.
Systematic Botany 4(1): 72–102.
Hanburyana 5: 57–60 (2011) 57
The correct name for the weeping form of the Indian
mast tree (Polyalthia longifolia, Annonaceae)
I. M. Turner
Research Associate, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew and Singapore Botanic
Gardens
Polyalthia longifolia is a tree species native to Sri Lanka. It has a
long history of cultivation in Sri Lanka and India and was originally
described in 1782 as Uvaria longifolia by Sonnerat from specimens
growing in Pondicherry in southern India.
Polyalthia longifolia is typically monopodial with a straight and erect
main trunk and spreading side branches forming a relatively narrow
crown. However, there is a form of the tree in cultivation with a
weeping habit with short down-swept branches producing a very
narrow, erect crown. It is commonly grown in gardens, parks and
along roads in the Asian tropics and has found favour with landscape
architects throughout the tropics. The plant is often referred to as
Polyalthia longifolia var. pendula, but, believing that this taxon had
never been validly described under the International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature (McNeill et al., 2006), I described the weeping form
as a cultivar (Turner, 2000), choosing the cultivar name Temple
Pillar. However, after further research through the literature it is now
possible to make the case for ‘Pendula’ being the correct name for
this entity. While names derived from Latin, such as Pendula, cannot
generally be used for cultivated plants according to the International
Code for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants (Brickell et al., 2009),
they can if based on epithets first published before 1 January 1959
(Art. 21.6). The earliest published reference to the weeping form
of Polyalthia longifolia found so far is in Complete Gardening in India
by K. S. Gopalaswamiengar (Gopalaswamiengar, 1935). In a section
on ornamental foliage trees, a description of Polyalthia longifolia is
followed by the sentence: “The weeping variety of the above, Var.
pendula is more ornamental.” Gopalaswamiengar’s diagnosis of the
variety in the single word “weeping” is debatable in its descriptive
sufficiency but its rendering in English rather than Latin just passes the
58I. M. Turner
deadline (1 January 1935) for valid publication under ICBN. Complete
Gardening in India is largely compiled from Gopalaswamiengar’s
gardening column from The Hindu newspaper, so it is possible that
var. pendula appeared in print before 1935. Unfortunately I have not
been able to obtain access to any issues of the newspaper from the
early 1930s. Polyalthia longifolia var. pendula is also referred to by
Benthall (1946) with a more detailed description than provided by
Gopalaswamiengar.
In his Flowering Trees in India published in 1957, M. S. Randhawa (p. 91)
wrote: “An avenue of Polyalthia pendula appears very attractive along
an ascending road. There is a beautiful avenue of this pendulous variety
of asokan in ‘Kamla Retreat’, the house of Padampat Singhania at
Kanpur.” On page 171, asokan is given as one of the vernacular names
of Polyalthia longifolia. Thus there can be no doubt that Randhawa
was using Polyalthia pendula to refer to the weeping form of Polyalthia
longifolia. Polyalthia pendula is here, certainly invalid as a species under
ICBN (inadequate description and omission of Latin diagnosis).
Clearly the epithet “pendula” was applied to the weeping form of
Polyalthia longifolia by those involved with horticulture in India well
before 1959. Has the epithet been established as a cultivar name?
After some searching, aided in part by the Internet, I have found an
example where it has. There is a description of a visit by a group
from the International Dendrology Society to Sri Lanka written by Dr
Heino Heine in the Society’s Yearbook (Heine, 1997), which includes
a reference to Polyalthia longifolia ‘Pendula’ seen in the Royal Botanic
Gardens, Peradeniya:
Another, very frequently seen ornamental tree is the Indian
maraillupai, Polyalthia longifolia (Annonaceae). Practically all of
them belong to the cultivar ‘Pendula’ (see p. 74) and have a
very regular fastigiate columnar habit, due to extensive clonal
propagation. These trees have a most decorative, pendulous
foliage, showing constantly the phenomenon of the “flushing”
of the new shoots with coppery brownish young leaves. In
the gardens here is a fine old “normal” specimen as well, with
spreading branches, and hardly “pendulous” leaves.
The weeping form of the Indian mast tree 59
The reference to page 74 concerns a photograph of a row of Polyalthia
longifolia ‘Pendula’ in front of the Department of Agriculture building
in the Botanic Gardens. These trees are mostly still alive at the time of
writing (A. M. A. S. Attanayake, pers. comm.). Heine’s description and
accompanying photograph are perfectly adequate for diagnosing
the cultivar, though technically “fastigiate” is misapplied as the side
branches are pendent not almost erect as in a truly fastigiate tree.
Heine’s publication was certainly before my own, and therefore
‘Pendula’ has priority over ‘Temple Pillar’ and should be used. I
propose Heine’s published photograph as the nomenclatural standard
for the variety (cf. ICNCP Div. V Note 6) as it is difficult to capture the
diagnostic branching pattern of the tree on a herbarium sheet.
Given that Polyalthia longifolia was originally described from cultivation
could the type specimen have been of the weeping habit (which would
have major nomenclatural repercussions)? I do not believe it is possible
to tell the forms apart from specimens of foliage (reproductive or not) –
they differ solely in the branching habit. However, despite some authors
claiming that the weeping form is an ancient cultivar, none of the floras
or horticultural works from the nineteenth or early twentieth centuries
that I have consulted makes any mention of the striking columnar
variety. It seems to me likely that it has a more recent origin than perhaps
expected from its common use in the grounds of historic temples.
Nomenclature
Polyalthia longifolia (Sonn.) Thw., Enumeratio plantarum zeylaniae
398 (1864).
Basionym: Uvaria longifolia Sonn., Voyage aux Indes orientales et à la
Chine 2: 233, t. 131 (1782); Voyage aux Indes orientales et à la Chine
(octavo ed.) 3: 260 (1782).
= Uvaria altissima J. König ex Pennant, Outlines of the Globe 1: 83, t. 5
(1798), nom. superfl.
= Unona longifolia (Sonn.) Dunal, Monographie de la famille des
Anonacées 109 (1817)
= Guatteria longifolia (Sonn.) Wall., A numerical list of dried plants in the
East India Company’s Museum no. 6442 (1832).
Type: Sonnerat’s plate (lectotype, selected by Huber (1985)).
60I. M. Turner
‘Pendula’ K. S. Gopalaswamiengar, Complete gardening in India: 229
(1935), as var. pendula, nom. inval. ICBN Art. 36.1.
Nomenclatural standard: Photograph in H. Heine, International
Dendrology Society Yearbook 1996: 74 (photo on right) (1997).
= Polyalthia pendula M. S. Randhawa, Flowering trees in India 91 (1957),
nom. inval. ICBN Art. 36.1, non Polyalthia pendula Capuron ex
G. E. Schatz & Le Thomas (1990).
= ‘Temple Pillar’ I. M. Turner, Gardenwise 15: 9 (2000).
Nomenclatural standard: Photograph in I. M. Turner, Gardenwise 15:
9 (2000).
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to Dr Achala Attanayake (PDA) for information on
the status of the trees in Peradeniya. The editor is thanked for his
extensive constructive criticism and advice on this paper.
References
Benthall, A. P. (1946). The Trees of Calcutta and its Neighbourhood.
Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & Co.
Gopalaswamiengar, K. S. (1935). Complete Gardening in India.
Madras: The Huxley Press.
Heine, H. (1997). Sri Lanka – Part 2. International Dendrology Society
Yearbook 1996: 62–79.
Huber, H. (1985). Annonaceae. In: Dassanayake, M. D. (ed.), A Revised
Handbook to the Flora of Ceylon 5: 1–75. New Delhi: Amerind
Publishing Co.
McNeill, J., Barrie, F. R., Burder, H. M., Demoulin, V., Hawksworth,
D. L., Marhold, K., Nicolson, D. H., Prado, J., Silva, P. C., Skog,
J. E., Wiersema, J. H. & Turland, N. J. (2006). International Code
of Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna Code). Regnum Vegetabile 146:
1–568.
Randhawa, M. S. (1957). Flowering Trees in India. New Delhi: Indian
Council of Agricultural Research.
Turner, I. (2000). Four pillars for tropical landscapes. Gardenwise 15: 7–9.
Hanburyana 5: 61–66 (2011) 61
Ribes × beatonii, the original name for Ribes aureum
× sanguineum
E. C. Nelson
Tippitiwitchet Cottage, Hall Road, Outwell, Wisbech, Cambridgeshire PE14 8PE
A short, anonymous paragraph in The Gardeners’ Chronicle on 30 April
1842 reported that a “New Ribes” had recently blossomed in the Clapton
Nursery, then owned by Hugh Low (Willson, 1982: 105–106). The plant
had been raised by Donald Beaton from Ribes sanguineum Pursh (redflowering currant) deliberately cross-pollinated by R. aureum Pursh
(golden currant), both north American species quite recently introduced
to cultivation. The flowers, produced as profusely as in the seed-parent,
were described as “being of a reddish yellow colour, more slender than
those of R. sanguineum, while the leaves bear a strong resemblance to
those of R. aureum.” The habit was characterised as differing from both its
parents “being ... much more erect and graceful” (Anon., 1842: 288). The
paragraph was repeated or paraphrased in several other contemporary
periodicals (for example, Paxton’s Magazine of Botany 9: 118, 1842). In
none of these publications was any name provided for the hybrid.
A year later, in Loudon’s The Gardener’s Magazine, the plant was
initially reported under the name Ribes hybridum without a description
(Loudon, 1843a: 58): that binomial was not available because Besser
(1809: 186) had published it for a European plant that was identical with
R. grossularia L. Subsequently, in the same volume of The Gardener’s
Magazine, within “Arboricultural Notices” (Loudon, 1843b: 269), the
currant was named Ribes beatonii: “a hybrid ... between R. sanguineum
and R. aureum ... It is a vigorous plant, with long racemes of flowers,
partaking of the colour of both species.” Although very brief, this
description is adequate to validate the name. Don (1845) listed “Ribes
Beatoni” citing Edward’s Botanical Register as the source of the name
and although a list of Ribes was published in “Miscellaneous matter of
the Botanical Register 1843” it does not include this name.
Very soon after Loudon’s note was issued, a second name was
published for this hybrid currant. The shrub was listed as “New; rare”
62E. C. Nelson
under the invalid name “Ribes Hybridus Gordonianum” in the seventh
edition of William Kenrick’s The New American Orchardist (1844: 450),
for example. This suggests that it was thought inappropriate that the
working gardener and not his deceased employer was receiving the
credit: it is, of course, quite possible that Beaton himself wanted the
name to change.
The name Ribes gordonianum was used by Charles Lemaire when the
hybrid was illustrated in plate 165, dated November 1846, in Flore
de serres. Lemaire seems to have been puzzled by this epithet and
indicated that he did not know who the author was: “...et pour nous,
nous ignorons l’auteur de son appellation dédicative”. He referred
to Paxton’s Magazine of Botany but not to Loudon’s The Gardener’s
Magazine, and clearly knew that Beaton was working at that time
for Sir William Middleton at Shrubland Park. Subsequently, numerous
authors (for example Koch, 1863a and 1863b) mistakenly stated that
Paxton had named the hybrid – in fact, Paxton did not use any binomial
even when he referred to the plant a second time (Paxton, 1843b).
After Lemaire’s publication, the replacement eponym gordonianum
was more commonly used, although authors sometimes were
bewildered by it, implying that beatonii was more apposite (see, for
example, Koch’s (1863a) article about red- and yellow-blossomed
“Johannisbeere” and the French translation of it (Koch, 1863b):
“Ce même hybride était cultivé ... sous le nom de Ribes Beatoni qui
rappelait le jardinier à qui il était dû; cette dernière dénomination lui
est encore conservée par quelques personnes.”
An added complication was indicated by Goldring (1888): “R[ibes].
Gordonianum ... is also known under the name R. Beatoni and
R. Loudoni ...”. This is not the earliest indication of the epithet loudonii,
which also does not appear to have been validly published; it was
included by Lavallée (1877: 121) in synonymy under R. gordonianum
but without any explicit source. I have failed to trace an earlier printing
of the name. Lavallée (1877) also gave “R. Bactoni Aliq. Hort.” as yet
another synonym but it is most probably a misprinting of beatonii –
“ac” instead of “ea” – although he also had a variety of R. nigrum with
that particular name.
Ribes × beatonii 63
There is little doubt that Ribes × beatonii was the first name published
for the artificial hybrid R. sanguineum × aureum, and under the
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (McNeill et al, 2006) it
has priority and should be used instead of the later R. × gordonianum.
There follows a summary of the synonymy of R. × beatonii.
Ribes × beatonii hortulanorum ex Loudon, The Gardener’s Magazine
19: 269 (1843b).
Neotype: icon. Flore de Serres et des Jardins de l’Europe 2, plate 165.
= R. × gordonianum hortulanorum ex Lemaire, Flore de Serres et des
Jardins de l’Europe 2, plate 165 (1846)
= R. × loudonii nom. ined., cit. Lavallée, Arboretum Segrezianum.
Énumération des arbres et arbrisseaux cultivés à Segrez, Seine-et-Oise
121 (1877)
= R. × bactonii sphalm., cit. Lavallée, Arboretum Segrezianum.
Énumération des arbres et arbrisseaux cultivés à Segrez, Seine-et-Oise,
121 (1877).
A note on Donald Beaton (1802–1863)
Donald Beaton was a Gaelic-speaking native of Urray, Ross-shire,
Scotland (Waymark, 2009). In 1829 he became a gardener and
general manager at Haffield House in Hertfordshire, England, which
was owned by William Gordon (1794–1836). Loudon (1837) noted:
[Beaton] has been gardener and general manager to William
Gordon, Esq., at Haffield, for the last eight years; and only leaves
his situation in consequence of the death of his employer, and
the reduction of the establishment. While in the employment of
Mr. Gordon, he had, as he informs us, peculiar advantages for
acquiring professional knowledge, being allowed the travelling
expenses which he annually incurred in visiting gardens in
distant parts of the country, including the London nurseries;
and even the expense of an extensive correspondence with
gardeners was defrayed by Mr. Gordon, who allowed him the
free use of his extensive library.
Beaton found employment as gardener to Thomas Harris in Kilburn,
London, before becoming head gardener at Shrubland Park in Suffolk,
64E. C. Nelson
the home of Sir William Middleton, in 1840. Beaton was credited with
creating spectacular displays of summer bedding at Shrubland Park.
As well as being a practical and expert gardener, he regularly wrote
articles for The Cottage Gardener and also contributed to Loudon’s
The Gardener’s Magazine and The Gardeners’ Chronicle: Elliott (1990)
wondered if Beaton had been the “greatest gardening journalist of the
early nineteenth century”. Beaton was adept at cross-breeding plants; in
his autobiography he stated that while at Haffield House he had “crossed
all sorts of plants”. This experience led him to correspond indirectly
through the columns of the Journal of Horticulture (formerly The Cottage
Gardener) with Charles Darwin (see Elliott, 2010), but Darwin soon came
to the conclusion Beaton was untrustworthy as far as botanical matters
were concerned, “a clever, but d—d cock-sure man”.
Given the date of the first notice of Ribes × beatonii, as well as the
second name for it, his hybrid currant must have been raised while
Beaton was employed by Gordon at Haffield House. It could not have
originated at Shrubland Park (as erroneously stated, for example, by
Bean, 1921). Donald Beaton was also commemorated in the generic
name Beatonia by the Very Reverend William Herbert; it is relegated
to synonymy under Tigridia Ker-Gawl. Beaton had cultivated this at
Kilburn. One other plant was named after him, at least in gardening
circles – the “very pretty” Achimenes beatonii, cultivated by W. P. Ayres,
gardener to J. Cook Esq., of Brooklands, Blackheath, was shown at the
Horticultural Society in Chiswick on 21 June 1845 (Harrison, 1846:
12). The plant circulated on the continent (Anonymous, 1847: 162,
187) and was described in some detail as a variety of A. rosea Lindl.
by Löscher (1849: 135; see also Regel, 1848: 251).
References
Anon. (1842). New Ribes. Gardeners’ Chronicle 1842: 288.
Anon. (1847). Catalogue de l’exposition publique des produits de
l’agriculture et de l’horticulture institueée par le gouvernement et ouverte
à Bruxelles, en Septembre 1847. Bruxelles: Imprimerie de F. Parent.
Bean, W. J. (1921). Trees and Shrubs Hardy in the British Isles, 2. London:
John Murray.
Besser, W. S. J. G. von (1809). Primitiae Florae Galiciae Austriacae
Utriusque, 1. Vienna.
Ribes × beatonii 65
Don, P. N. (1845). Hortus Cantabrigiensis; or an accented catalogue
of indigenous and exotic plants cultivated in the Cambridge Botanic
Garden, edn 13. London: Longman & Co.
Elliott, B. (1990). Donald Beaton: the greatest gardening journalist of
the early nineteenth century? The Garden 115: 64–67.
Elliott, B. (2010). The reception of Charles Darwin in the British
horticultural press. Occasional Papers from the Lindley Library 3: 5–83.
Goldring, W. (1888). Flowering trees and shrubs. The Garden 34:
230–231.
[Harrison, J.] (1846). The Metropolitan flora exhibitions. Floricultural
Cabinet 14: 6–14.
Herbert, W. (1839). Beatonia, sub Gelasine azurea. Curtis’s Botanical
Magazine 66: tab. 3779.
Kenrick, W. (1844). The New American Orchardist, edn 2. Boston: Otis,
Broaders, and Company.
Koch, K. H. E. (1863a). Die roth- und gelb-blühende Johannisbeere
(Ribes sanguineum Pursh und R. aureum Pursh). Wochenschrift des
Vereines zur Beförderung des Gartenbaues in den Königlich Preussischen
Staaten für Gärtnerei und Pflanzenkunde 6 (no. 21): 161–163.
Koch, K. H. E. (1863b). Les Ribes sanguineum Pursh et aureum Pursh,
et les arbustes qui en sont issus. Journal de la Société Impériale et
Centrale d’Horticulture 9: 612–615.
Lavallée, P. A. M. (1877). Arboretum Segrezianum. Énumération des
arbres et arbrisseaux cultivés à Segrez, Seine-et-Oise. Paris: Librairie
J.-B. Baillière et fils.
Lemaire, C. (1846). Ribes gordonianum (hybr.). Flore de Serres et des
Jardins de l’Europe 2: plate 165. Ghent: Louis van Houtte
Löscher, E. (1849). Ueber die Pracht-Kultur der Gattungen Achimenes und
Gloxinia. Neue allgemeine deutsche Garten- und Blumenzeitung 5: 129–147.
[Loudon, J. C.] (1837). Mr. Beaton. The Gardener’s Magazine 3: 205.
[Loudon, J. C.] (1843a). Report on rare or select articles in certain British
nurseries and private gardens. The Gardener’s Magazine 19: 55–69.
[Loudon, J. C.] (1843b). Ribes Beatonii [in] Art. XI. Arboricultural
notices. The Gardener’s Magazine 19: 269.
McNeill, J., Barrie, F. R., Burder, H. M., Demoulin, V., Hawksworth,
D. L., Marhold, K., Nicolson, D. H., Prado, J., Silva, P. C., Skog, J. E.,
Wiersema, J. H. & Turland, N. J. (2006). International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature (Vienna Code). Regnum Vegetabile 146: 1–568.
66E. C. Nelson
Paxton, J. (1842). Ribes albidum. Paxton’s Magazine of Botany 9: 118.
Paxton, J. (1843). Ribes albidum. Paxton’s Magazine of Botany 10:
55.
Regel, E. (1848). Ueber die Gattungen der Gernereen. Flora oder
angemeine botanische Zeitung 31: 241–253.
Waymark, J. (2009). Beaton, Donald (1802–1863). In: Goldman, L. (ed),
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edition. Oxford <www.
oxforddnb.com.ipac.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/view/article/96720
accessed August 2, 2010>.
Willson, E. J. (1982). West London Nursery Gardens. London: Fulham &
Hammersmith Historical Society.
Hanburyana 5: 67 (2011) 67
Recombination of Iris × norrisii
C. M. Whitehouse
The RHS Advisory Committee on Nomenclature and Taxonomy agreed
to adopt for the 2011–2012 edition of the RHS Plant Finder the generic
circumscriptions found in Goldblatt & Manning (2008). Two previously
recognised monotypic genera, Belamcanda and Pardanthopsis, have
now been sunk into Iris. Pardanthopsis dichotoma had previously been
known as I. dichotoma, so no recombination was needed. On the
other hand, as the epithet “chinensis” was already in use under Iris
for a different species, Belamcanda chinensis needed the new name of
I. domestica (L.) Goldblatt & Mabb. (Goldblatt & Mabberley, 2005).
However, there is also a hybrid between these two species, which
is widely grown in horticulture under the common name candy
lily. It was raised by Samuel Norris in 1967 by pollinating flowers of
Iris dichotoma with pollen from I. domestica Avalon Hybrids. It was
described by Lee Lenz some five years later as the bigeneric hybrid
× Pardancanda norrisii. As this hybrid binomial does not appear to have
a valid name under Iris, the requisite combination is published here.
Iris × norrisii (L. W. Lenz) C. Whitehouse comb. nov.
Basionym: × Pardancanda norrisii L. W. Lenz, Aliso 7: 407 (1972).
Holotype: USA: California, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, grown
from plants received from Samuel N. Norris, Owensboro, Kentucky.
Lee W. Lenz 24895 (RSA).
References
Goldblatt, P. & Mabberley, D. J. (2005). Belamcanda included in Iris,
and the new combination I. domestica (Iridaceae: Irideae). Novon 15:
128–132.
Goldblatt, P. & Manning, J. (2008). The Iris Family: Natural History &
Classification. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press.
Lenz, L. W. (1972). An intergeneric hybrid between Belamcanda chinensis
and Pardanthopsis dichotoma (= Iris dichotoma). Aliso 7(4): 405–407.
Hanburyana 5: 68 (2011)
68
Proposal to amend the International Code of
Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants
A. C. Leslie
109 York Street, Cambridge CB1 2PX
Proposal H1: Date of Publication
(H1) Art.26.4. Notwithstanding Art. 26.1, if a printed trade
catalogue or other publication contains no evidence of date,
subsequent published research may determine the effective
date of that publication.
This proposal removes an anomaly in the current ICNCP (Brickell et
al., 2009) which enables research to establish the date of publication
of an otherwise undated trade catalogue, but makes no provision
for establishing dates for any other publication. The remainder of
the article does not place restrictions on the publications covered
and indeed the example given in Art. 26.4 Ex.2 mentions “nursery
catalogues and other publications”. There seems no logical reason to
include trade catalogues and exclude other publications from this
provision, as the names of new cultivars may potentially be established
in a range of other publications besides trade catalogues.
Reference
Hanburyana 5: 69–82 (2011) 69
Nomenclatural Standards deposited in the Royal
Horticultural Society’s Herbarium, Wisley (WSY)
November 2008 – October 2009
S. R. Grayer
In accordance with Division V.7 of the International Code of Nomenclature
for Cultivated Plants (Brickell et al., 2009), the following items in the
Royal Horticultural Society’s herbarium at Wisley (WSY) are hereby
designated nomenclatural standards. This list is a continuation of the
list previously published in Hanburyana 4: 89–96 (2009).
The list that follows gives the plant name; the date it was collected or
registered together with the form the standard takes (i.e. herbarium
specimen – flowering (fl), fruiting (fr), vegetative (v); illustration –
painting (p), photographic transparency (tr), colour photograph (pc)
which includes prints from digital files); and the unique accession
number.
Acer pauciflorum ‘Blaze Away’, 24 Sep 2009, (fr), WSY0112868
Agapanthus ‘Aimee’, 23 Jul 2009, (fl), WSY0112779
Anemone hupehensis ‘Hadspen Abundance’, 9 Sep 1997, (fl),
WSY0070170
Azara serrata ‘Maurice Mason’, 16 May 2001, (fl), WSY0032965
Carex pendula ‘Moonraker’, 23 May 2009, (fl), WSY0112334
Centranthus ruber ‘Nettleton’, 23 Oct 2007, (fl), WSY0100510
Chrysanthemum ‘Belle Chinoise’, 1 Dec 1925, (p), WSY0016209
Chrysanthemum ‘Husky’, 14 Sep 2009, (fl), WSY0112954
Chrysanthemum ‘Tim Wonnacott’, 12 Jul 2009, (fl), WSY0112560
Clematis ‘Akane no tsubo’, 25 Sep 2008, (pc), WSY0112011
Clematis ‘Andrew Van Laeken’, 20 Nov 2008, (pc), WSY0101983
Clematis ‘C.G. Dahl’, 24 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101979
Clematis × cartmanii ‘Joanna’, 1996, (fl), WSY0096949
Clematis ‘Celebration’(PBR), (pc), WSY0100485
Clematis ‘Center Star’, 1 Sep 2008, (pc), WSY0101980
Clematis Chevalier ‘Evipo040’, 23 May 2009, (fl), WSY0112367
70S. R. Grayer
Clematis Diana’s Delight ‘Evipo026’, 23 May 2009, (fl), WSY0112366
Clematis ‘Dorothy Barbara’, 28 Apr 2007, (fl), WSY0100831
Clematis Fleuri ‘Evipo042’, 23 May 2009, (fl), WSY0112368
Clematis ‘Fuji-no-izumi’, 2007, (pc), WSY0100497
Clematis ‘Irene’, 20 Nov 2008, (pc), WSY0101984
Clematis ‘Jolly Jake’, 18 May 2005, (pc), WSY0096750
Clematis ‘Kahori no kimi’, 25 Sep 2008, (pc), WSY0112013
Clematis ‘Kasumi-no-kimi’, 25 Sep 2008, (pc), WSY0112014
Clematis ‘Murasaki no ue’, 25 Sep 2008, (pc), WSY0112015
Clematis Ooh L a L a ‘Evipo041’, 23 May 2009, (fl), WSY0112365
Clematis patens ‘BCL 721’, 24 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101978
Clematis ‘Special Occasion’, 1997, (tr), WSY0096800
Clematis ‘Yugao’, 25 Sep 2008, (pc), WSY0112016
Clematis ‘Yugiri’, 25 Sep 2008, (pc), WSY0112017
Cornus ‘Norman Hadden’, 9 Jul 1974, (fl), WSY0064837
Cornus ‘Ormonde’, 8 Aug 1972, (v), WSY0064881
Cornus ‘Porlock’, 18 Jun 1968, (fl), WSY0064883
Cymbidium Avranches grex ‘Roche d’Or’, 12 Feb 2008, (fl),
WSY0101678
Cymbidium Loch Jess grex ‘Lewes’, 17 Mar 2008, (fl), WSY0101671
Cymbidium Mourier Point grex ‘Saint Mary’s Village’, 15 Mar 2008,
(fl), WSY0101677
Cymbidium Paternoster grex ‘Trinity’, 15 Jan 2008, (fl), WSY0101676
Dahlia ‘Ace Summer Emotions’ (PBR), 13 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101079
Dahlia ‘Aladdin’s Lamp’, 25 Jan 2007, (pc), WSY0096680
Dahlia American Pie ‘Vdtg26’ (PBR) (Dark Angel Series), 9 Oct 2008,
(pc), WSY0101541
Dahlia ‘Anna Mari US’, 2 Oct 2008, (pc), WSY0101529
Dahlia ‘Avoca Cheyenne’, 15 Nov 2007, (pc), WSY0100699
Dahlia ‘Avoca Comanche’, 15 Nov 2007, (pc), WSY0100703
Dahlia ‘Babylon Brons’, 11 Sep 2008, (pc), WSY0101522
Dahlia ‘Babylon Lila’, 11 Sep 2008, (pc), WSY0101523
Dahlia ‘Babylon Paars’, 11 Sep 2008, (pc), WSY0101524
Dahlia ‘Beemster’s Mill Nightingale’, 1 May 2008, (pc), WSY0101146
Dahlia ‘Bill McKnight’s Memory’, 13 Sep 2007, (pc), WSY0100438
Dahlia ‘Bob T’, 9 Oct 2008, (pc), WSY0101645
Dahlia Braveheart ‘Vdtg67’ (PBR) (Dark Angel Series), 9 Oct 2008,
(pc), WSY0101536
Standards deposited in RHS Herbarium Wisley 2008–2009
Dahlia ‘Butterpat’, 6 Sep 2007, (fl), WSY0100537
Dahlia ‘Cairo’, 28 Jun 2007, (pc), WSY0100224
Dahlia ‘Camargue’, 11 Sep 2008, (pc), WSY0101526
Dahlia ‘Davida’, 9 Oct 2008, (pc), WSY0101551
Dahlia ‘Deveny’s Symphony’, 27 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101129
Dahlia ‘Diamond Prince’, 8 Aug 2007, (pc), WSY0100414
Dahlia ‘Dikara Apricot’, 11 Sep 2007, (fl), WSY0100323
Dahlia ‘Dikara Kelly’, 18 Sep 2007, (fl), WSY0100395
Dahlia ‘Dilys Ayling’ , 2 Oct 2008, (pc), WSY0101534
Dahlia ‘Ellie Taylor’, 2 Oct 2008, (pc), WSY0101533
Dahlia ‘Esta Bonita’,12 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101210
Dahlia ‘Evelyn Hancock’, 1 Sep 1926, (p), WSY0017162
Dahlia ‘Evelyn Taylor’, 1 Feb 2007, (pc), WSY0096675
Dahlia ‘Gallery Serenade’ (PBR), 27 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101088
Dahlia ‘Gallery Sisley’, 27 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101085
Dahlia ‘Griotte’, 24 Jan 2008, (pc), WSY0100908
Dahlia ‘Heather Jean’, 9 Oct 2008, (pc), WSY0101552
Dahlia ‘HS Date’ (PBR), 13 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101082
Dahlia ‘Janick’s Symphony’, 27 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101132
Dahlia ‘Joanne Taylor’, 1 Feb 2007, (pc), WSY0096674
Dahlia ‘Kaio-sei J’, 10 Apr 2008, (pc), WSY0101139
Dahlia ‘Karma Choc’ (PBR), 8 Aug 2007, (pc), WSY0100710
Dahlia ‘Karma Irene’ (PBR), 13 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101081
Dahlia ‘Karma Pink Corona’ (PBR), 12 Jul 2007, (pc), WSY0100709
Dahlia ‘Karma Red Corona’ (PBR), 26 Jul 2007, (pc), WSY0100708
Dahlia ‘Kathy Bateson’, 20 Dec 2007, (pc), WSY0100790
Dahlia ‘Let’s Dance’, 9 Oct 2008, (pc), WSY0101540
Dahlia ‘Lia Fiorina’, 29 Mar 2007, (pc), WSY0096917
Dahlia ‘Lilianna W’, 2 Oct 2008, (pc), WSY0101531
Dahlia ‘Little Abi’, 20 Dec 2007, (pc), WSY0100787
Dahlia ‘Marion Storer’, 15 Nov 2007, (pc), WSY0100706
Dahlia ‘Maroon Fox’ (PBR), 9 Oct 2008, (pc), WSY0101537
Dahlia ‘Mayan Blood’, 16 Aug 2005, (fl), WSY0070260
Dahlia ‘Mayan Firecracker’, 25 Jan 2007, (pc), WSY0096682
Dahlia ‘Mayan Swan’, 6 Sep 2007, (fl), WSY0100458
Dahlia ‘Melody Fanfare’ (PBR), 13 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101084
Dahlia ‘Melody Harmony’ (PBR), 13 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101083
Dahlia ‘Melody Lizza’ (PBR), 13 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101086
71
72S. R. Grayer
Dahlia ‘Miss Alison’, 22 Sep 2009, (fl), WSY0112861
Dahlia ‘Miss Blanche’, 28 Jun 2007, (pc), WSY0100227
Dahlia ‘Monet Mystique’, 25 Jan 2007, (pc), WSY0096681
Dahlia ‘Monet Sunlight’, 25 Jan 2007, (pc), WSY0096683
Dahlia ‘Nanno’ Treseder, 1931, (p), WSY0016982
Dahlia ‘Noir Desir’, 2 Oct 2008, (pc), WSY0101530
Dahlia ‘Palmares’, 2 Oct 2008, (pc), WSY0101532
Dahlia ‘Penhill Lavender Prince’, 6 Dec 2007, (pc), WSY0100772
Dahlia Pretty Woman ‘Vdtg43’ (PBR) (Dark Angel Series), 9 Oct 2008,
(pc), WSY0101539
Dahlia ‘Princesse Gracia’, 25 Sep 2008, (pc), WSY0101436
Dahlia ‘Princesse Laetitia’, 25 Sep 2008, (pc), WSY0101437
Dahlia Pulp Fiction ‘Vdtg61’ (PBR) (Dark Angel Series), 9 Oct 2008,
(pc), WSY0101538
Dahlia ‘Purple Explosion’, 12 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101209
Dahlia ‘Purple Flame’, 28 Jun 2007, (pc), WSY0100226
Dahlia ‘Ragazza’, 5 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101208
Dahlia ‘Revive’, 23 May 2009, (fl), WSY0112390
Dahlia ‘Roma’ (PBR), 13 Sep 2007, (pc), WSY0100440
Dahlia ‘Royal Mail’, 25 Jan 2007, (pc), WSY0096687
Dahlia ‘Scarlet Gem’ Dobbie, 1932, (p), WSY0016593
Dahlia ‘Serkan’, 5 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101205
Dahlia ‘Sophie Estié’, 17 Apr 2008, (pc), WSY0101144
Dahlia ‘Spanish Conquest’, 14 Aug 2007, (fl), WSY0100460
Dahlia ‘Stars and Stripes’, 5 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101206
Dahlia ‘Stephanie Chateau’, 1 Feb 2007, (pc), WSY0096688
Dahlia ‘Tirreno’, 12 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101207
Dahlia ‘Valbonne’, 9 Oct 2008, (pc), WSY0101535
Dahlia ‘Weissenpracht’, 11 Sep 2008, (pc), WSY0101527
Dahlia ‘Will’s Carousel’, 25 Sep 2008, (fl), WSY0112177
Dahlia ‘Wizard of Oz’, 25 Sep 2008, (pc), WSY0101435
Dahlia ‘Wolstenholme’s Fusilier’, 6 Sep 2007, (fl), WSY0100515
Dahlia ‘Woodbridge’, 11 Sep 2007, (fl), WSY0100448
Dahlia ‘Wymott’, 11 Sep 2008, (pc), WSY0101528
Daphne ‘Spring Beauty’, 3 Mar 2009, (fl), WSY0112139
Daphne ‘Spring Herald’, 3 Mar 2009, (fl), WSY0112140
Delphinium ‘Joanna’, 27 Jun 2007, (fl), WSY0100175
Delphinium ‘Purple Haze’, 27 Jun 2007, (fl), WSY0100176
73
Dianthus alpinus ‘Gwen’s Blush’, 16 May 2007, (tr), WSY0100127
Dianthus ‘Anders Cherry Ripe’, 15 Aug 2007, (pc), WSY0100741
Dianthus ‘Anders Crimson Flame’, 15 Aug 2007, (pc), WSY0100744
Dianthus ‘Anders Crystal’, 15 Aug 2007, (pc), WSY0100746
Dianthus ‘Anders Molly Mo’, 15 Aug 2007, (pc), WSY0100742
Dianthus ‘Anders Peace’, 15 Aug 2007, (pc), WSY0100739
Dianthus ‘Anders Pluto’, Aug 2007, (pc), WSY0100737
Dianthus ‘Anders Salmon Sensation’, 15 Aug 2007, (pc), WSY0100740
Dianthus ‘Anders Tiny Tim’, 15 Aug 2007, (pc), WSY0100743
Dianthus ‘Bofield Louisa’, 21 May 2007, (fl), WSY0112285
Dianthus ‘Bofield Sadie’, 21 May 2007, (fl), WSY0112287
Dianthus ‘Camilla West’, 13 Jul 2007, (fl), WSY0100269
Dianthus ‘Don Portman’, Jul 2003, (fl), WSY0041910
Dianthus ‘Freda Woodliffe’, 16 Jun 2008, (fl), WSY0101351
Dianthus ‘Highland Charlie Davidson’, 30 Oct 2007, (pc),
WSY0100755
Dianthus ‘Highland Dad’s Memory’, 30 Oct 2007, (pc), WSY0100758
Dianthus ‘Highland John and Olivia’, 30 Oct 2007, (pc), WSY0100757
Dianthus ‘Highland Michael Wares’, 30 Oct 2007, (pc), WSY0100760
Dianthus ‘Joanne Lane’, 13 Feb 2008, (pc), WSY0101040
Dianthus ‘Kessock Flare’, Sep 2009, (pc), WSY0112859
Dianthus ‘Linfield Julie’, 21 May 2007, (pc), WSY0100129
Dianthus ‘Linfield Sarah Drage’, 3 Dec 2007, (pc), WSY0100798
Dianthus ‘Smasher’, 24 Jul 2007, (pc), WSY0100759
Dianthus ‘Sutton Amethyst’, 20 Feb 2008, (pc), WSY0100965
Dianthus ‘Sutton Bella Rouge’, 2005, (pc), WSY0100966
Dianthus ‘Sutton Crimson Halo’, 2007, (pc), WSY0100967
Dianthus ‘Sutton Double Duch’, 2007, (pc), WSY0100968
Dianthus ‘Sutton English Beauty’, 2007, (pc), WSY0100969
Dianthus ‘Sutton Fair Dinkum’, 2007, (pc), WSY0100970
Dianthus ‘Sutton Garnet Rose’, 2007, (pc), WSY0100971
Dianthus ‘Sutton Halcyon Days’, 2007, (pc), WSY0100972
Dianthus ‘Sutton Indian Silk’, 20 Feb 2008, (pc), WSY0100973
Dianthus ‘Sutton Indigo Ice’, 2007, (pc), WSY0100974
Dianthus ‘Sutton Mayfair’, 2007, (pc), WSY0100975
Dianthus ‘Sutton Melissa Haywood’, 20 Feb 2008, (pc), WSY0100976
Dianthus ‘Sutton Nile Sunset’, 2005, (pc), WSY0100977
Dianthus ‘Sutton Pamela Anne’, 2006, (pc), WSY0100979
74S. R. Grayer
Dianthus ‘Sutton Pamela’s Choice’, 2007, (pc), WSY0100978
Dianthus ‘Sutton Peter Newby’, 2007, (pc), WSY0100981
Dianthus ‘Sutton Symphony’, 2007, (pc), WSY0100982
Dianthus ‘Sutton Tequila Rose’, 20 Feb 2008, (pc), WSY0100983
Dianthus ‘Sutton Twilight Shadow’, 20 Feb 2008, (pc), WSY0100984
Epimedium ‘Flowers of Sulphur’, 21 Apr 2009, (fl), WSY0112872
Epimedium ‘Madame Butterfly’, 21 Apr 2009, (fl), WSY0112871
Epimedium ‘Pink Elf’ (PBR), 27 Apr 2009, (fl), WSY0112307
Fritillaria graeca subsp. graeca ‘Bill Ivey’, 5 Apr 2008, (fl),
WSY0112273
Galanthus nivalis ‘Dame Margot Fonteyn’, Mar 2009, (fl),
WSY0112317
Galanthus nivalis ‘Dunskey Talia’, 31 Jan 2008, (fl), WSY0100893
Gentiana ‘Balmoral’ (PBR), 4 Oct 2005, (fl), WSY0085193
Gentiana ‘Saltire’, 11 Oct 2006, (fl), WSY0089906
Geranium (Cinereum Group) ‘Queen of Hearts’, 15 Jun 2006, (fl),
WSY0097760
Geranium ‘King Penda’, 22 Jul 2004, (fl), WSY0075929
Geranium ‘Meryl Anne’, 5 Jul 2004, (fl), WSY0075766
Geranium × oxonianum ‘Cream Chocolate’, 22 Jun 2004, (fl),
WSY0070387
Geranium × oxonianum ‘Rosemary Verey’, 15 Jul 2004, (fl),
WSY0075858
Geranium phaeum ‘George Stone’, 25 Apr 2007, (fl), WSY0098806
Geranium phaeum ‘Rachel’s Rhapsody’, 25 Apr 2007, (fl),
WSY0098816
Geranium psilostemon ‘Jason Bloom’, 22 Jul 2004, (fl), WSY0075961
Geranium sanguineum Alan Bloom ‘Bloger’ (PBR), 11 Jul 2005, (fl),
WSY0087063
Geranium sanguineum ‘Joanna’, 11 Jul 2005, (fl), WSY0087048
Geranium sanguineum ‘Robin’s Rascal’, 8 Jul 2005, (fl), WSY0087041
Geranium ‘Southease Celestial’, 20 May 2004, (fl), WSY0051169
Geranium sylvaticum ‘Coquetdale Lilac’, 18 May 2006, (fl),
WSY0096485
Hebe ‘Baby Blush’ (PBR), 17 Jun 2009, (fl), WSY0112434
Hebe ‘Black Knight’, 26 Jun 2009, (fl), WSY0112594
Hebe ‘Lowink’, 17 Jun 2009, (fl), WSY0112437
Hebe ‘Neopolitan’, 1 Jul 2009, (fl), WSY0112595
75
Hebe ‘Nold’ (PBR), 17 Jun 2009, (fl), WSY0112435
Hebe ‘Valentino’ (PBR), 17 Jun 2009, (fl), WSY0112432
Hedera helix L. ‘The Cup’, 6 Oct 2009, (v), WSY0112964
Hydrangea ‘Darlido’ (PBR), 23 Jul 2007, (fl), WSY0105310
Hydrangea paniculata ‘Ammarin’, 31 Jul 2008, (fl), WSY0112130
Hydrangea paniculata ‘Big Ben’, 6 Aug 2007, (fl), WSY0112132
Hydrangea paniculata ‘Bridal Veil’, 3 Aug 2007, (fl), WSY0105354
Hydrangea paniculata ‘Bulk’ (PBR), 31 Jul 2008, (fl), WSY0112134
Hydrangea paniculata ‘Dolly’, 31 Jul 2008, (fl), WSY0112127
Hydrangea paniculata ‘Great Escape’, 6 Aug 2007, (fl), WSY0100723
Hydrangea paniculata ‘Last Post’, 25 Jul 2008, (fl), WSY0112129
Hydrangea paniculata ‘Sherwood’, 31 Jul 2008, (fl), WSY0112126
Hydrangea paniculata ‘Tender Rose’, 23 Jul 2007, (fl), WSY0105315
Hydrangea paniculata ‘White Goliath’, 31 Jul 2008, (fl), WSY0112135
Kniphofia ‘Ample Dwarf’, 14 Jul 2009, (fl), WSY0112950
Lathyrus odoratus ‘Cherub Crimson’, 26 Jun 2009, (fl), WSY0112473
Lathyrus odoratus ‘Cyril Plater’, 1 Jul 2008, (fl), WSY0101565
Lathyrus odoratus ‘Duo Salmon’, 26 Jun 2009, (fl), WSY0112494
Lathyrus odoratus ‘Geoff Hughes’, 23 Jul 2009, (fl), WSY0112613
Lathyrus odoratus ‘Kiera Madeline’, 23 Jul 2009, (fl), WSY0112616
Lathyrus odoratus ‘Leominster Boy’, 23 Jul 2009, (fl), WSY0112615
Lathyrus odoratus ‘Lipstick’, 26 Jun 2009, (fl), WSY0112605
Lathyrus odoratus ‘Naomi Nazareth’, 27 Jun 2008, (fl), WSY0101555
Lathyrus odoratus ‘Sir Jimmy Shand’, 1 Jul 2008, (fl), WSY0101563
Lathyrus odoratus ‘Sir Max Hastings’, 1 Jul 2008, (fl), WSY0101554
Lathyrus odoratus ‘Summer Sunshine’, 27 Jun 2008, (fl), WSY0101558
Lathyrus odoratus ‘Yvette Ann’, 28 Jun 2008, (fl), WSY0101556
Lavandula angustifolia ‘Coconut Ice’ (PBR), 5 Jan 2003, (fl),
WSY0112618
Lavandula angustifolia ‘Elizabeth’, 12 Aug 2001, (fl), WSY0112606
Lavandula × chaytoriae ‘Joan Head’, 27 Jul 2002, (fl), WSY0112318
Lavandula × chaytoriae ‘Molton Silver’, 5 Jan 2003, (fl), WSY0112601
Lavandula dentata var. dentata ‘Dusky Maiden’, 1 Jul 2009, (fl),
WSY0112599
Lavandula × intermedia ‘Caversham Blue’, 15 Aug 1996, (fl),
WSY0112617
Lavandula × intermedia ‘Nizza’, 25 Oct 2001, (fl), WSY0112602
Lilium ‘Clarion’, 24 Aug 1981, (pc), WSY0112245
76S. R. Grayer
Lilium ‘Emerald Beauty’, 5 Sep 1992, (pc), WSY0112351
Lilium ‘Feuerwerksmusik’, 17 Feb 1997, (pc), WSY0112359
Lilium ‘Fireworks’, 16 Mar 1988, (pc), WSY0112362
Lilium ‘Firnengold’, 15 Apr 1999, (pc), WSY0112361
Lilium ‘Flamenco’, 16 Nov 1992, (pc), WSY0112360
Lilium ‘Gartenglück’, 26 Mar 1998, (pc), WSY0112363
Lilium ‘Golden Dew’, 18 Mar 1987, (pc), WSY0112354
Lilium ‘Goldener Pavillon’, 14 Apr 1999, (pc), WSY0112355
Lilium ‘Goldener Turban’, 15 Apr 1999, (pc), WSY0112352
Lilium ‘Graf Almaviva’, 19 Feb 1997, (pc), WSY0112356
Lilium ‘Halka’, 20 Feb 1997, (pc), WSY0112357
Lilium ‘Libretto’, 12 Nov 1992, (pc), WSY0112353
Lilium ‘Little Egypt’, 1981, (pc), WSY0112350
Lilium ‘Sonnenflecken’, 17 Feb 1997, (pc), WSY0112309
Lunaria annua ‘Nettleton’, 2 May 2007, (fl), WSY0100077
Miltonia La Garenne grex ‘Jersey’, 17 Mar 2007, (fl), WSY0101675
Miltonia Le Couperon grex ‘Jersey’, 17 Mar 2007, (fl), WSY0101670
Miltonia Point des Pas grex ‘Jersey’, 21 Apr 2009, (fl), WSY0112805
Narcissus ‘Akcie’, 2002, (pc), WSY0042115
Narcissus ‘Andrew’s Choice’, 28 Mar 2008, (fl), WSY0112067
Narcissus ‘Battersby’, 30 Jun 2008, (tr), WSY0101389
Narcissus ‘Biggar’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101384
Narcissus ‘Bracken Hill’, 18 Apr 1997, (fl), WSY0048724
Narcissus ‘Chief Joseph’, 30 Jun 2006, (pc), WSY0103848
Narcissus ‘Chobe River’, 30 Apr 2009, (fl), WSY0112447
Narcissus ‘Cormiston’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101385
Narcissus ‘Dalmeny’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101367
Narcissus ‘Eastbrook Beauty’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101439
Narcissus ‘Erin Marie’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101440
Narcissus ‘French Robin’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101357
Narcissus ‘Gold Bond’, 30 Apr 2009, (fl), WSY0112454
Narcissus ‘Golden Twins’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101368
Narcissus ‘Green Lawns’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101370
Narcissus ‘Hollowbridge’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101361
Narcissus ‘Hollypark’, 30 Apr 2009, (fl), WSY0112449
Narcissus ‘Kiss of Fire’, 21 Jun 2006, (pc), WSY0103888
Narcissus ‘Lady Eve’, 30 Apr 2009, (fl), WSY0112450
Narcissus ‘Lakeland Sunset’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101253
77
Narcissus ‘Leaf Peeper’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101363
Narcissus ‘Little Meg’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101374
Narcissus ‘Little Starlets’, 21 Jun 2006, (pc), WSY0103893
Narcissus ‘Mayor’s Choice’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101371
Narcissus ‘Mist of Avalon’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101373
Narcissus ‘Moneybroom’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101359
Narcissus ‘Narrative’, 25 Apr 2007, (fl), WSY0100101
Narcissus ‘Nessa’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101375
Narcissus ‘Otaki Pearl’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101386
Narcissus ‘Paul Laurence Dunbar’, 14 Jun 2007, (pc), WSY0100248
Narcissus ‘Penelewey’, 22 Mar 1927, (p), WSY0019428
Narcissus ‘Pentland Firth’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101383
Narcissus ‘Rachel Bushen’, 28 Mar 2008, (fl), WSY0101387
Narcissus ‘Sissy’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101378
Narcissus ‘Spa Town’, 30 Jun 2008, (tr), WSY0101390
Narcissus ‘Taughblane’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101364
Narcissus ‘The Caley’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101377
Narcissus ‘Water Mill’, 30 Jun 2008, (tr), WSY0101388
Narcissus ‘West Post’, 30 Apr 2009, (fl), WSY0112451
Narcissus ‘Zikomo’, 30 Jun 2008, (pc), WSY0101438
× Odontioda Bouley Bay grex ‘Jersey’, 15 Jan 2008, (fl), WSY0101672
× Odontioda La Villaise grex ‘Saint Clement’, 11 Dec 2007, (fl),
WSY0101663
× Odontioda Trodais grex ‘Saint Clement’, 21 Apr 2009, (fl),
WSY0112806
Paphiopedilum Knob Mochizuki grex ‘Victoria Village’, 15 Jan 2008,
(fl), WSY0101682
Pelargonium ‘Fir Trees Janet’, 18 Aug 2009, (fl), WSY0112770
Pelargonium ‘Fir Trees Jennifer’, 18 Aug 2009, (fl), WSY0112766
Pelargonium ‘Fir Trees Val’, 23 Jul 2009, (fl), WSY0112761
Pelargonium ‘Jip’s Pip’, 18 Aug 2009, (fl), WSY0112765
Pelargonium ‘Princess Abigail’, 18 Aug 2009, (fl), WSY0112763
Pelargonium ‘Quantock Perfection’, 18 Aug 2009, (fl), WSY0112764
Pelargonium ‘Quantock Rory Paul’, 18 Aug 2009, (fl), WSY0112772
Phragmipedium Augres grex ‘Saint Helier’, 11 Dec 2007, (fl),
WSY0101684
Phragmipedium Grande grex ‘Victoria Village’, 21 Apr 2009, (fl),
WSY0112869
78S. R. Grayer
Phragmipedium Grouville grex ‘Trinity’, 12 Feb 2008, (fl),
WSY0101674
Pterocarya stenoptera ‘Fern Leaf’, 16 Nov 1999, (v), WSY0019255
Ranunculus ficaria subsp. bulbilifer ‘The Net’, 23 Apr 2007, (fl),
WSY0100088
Rhododendron ‘Abby Kate’, 23 Jan 2008, (pc), WSY0101030
Rhododendron ‘Abby Lauren’, 30 Dec 2008, (pc), WSY0101961
Rhododendron ‘Adrien Le Fur’, 1 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101331
Rhododendron ‘Agnese Pallavicino’, 2004, (pc), WSY0112244
Rhododendron ‘Alberto Maria De Agostini’, 3 Mar 2008, (pc),
WSY0101262
Rhododendron ‘Alessandra Castelli’, 2004, (pc), WSY0112240
Rhododendron ‘Alfonso Sella’, 10 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101264
Rhododendron ‘Alicia Kaye’, 30 Dec 2008, (pc), WSY0101959
Rhododendron arboreum subsp. arboreum ‘Tiger’s Nest’, 28 Apr 2008,
(fl), WSY0112005
Rhododendron ‘Armonica’, 10 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101266
Rhododendron ‘Balbo’, 2008, (pc), WSY0112239
Rhododendron ‘Brea Renee’, 2 Jan 2008, (pc), WSY0100800
Rhododendron ‘Caerhays Lavender’, 26 Apr 2008, (fl), WSY0112021
Rhododendron ‘Camilla Bianchi’, 2004, (pc), WSY0112238
Rhododendron ‘Cannero Riviera’, 2004, (pc), WSY0112236
Rhododendron ‘Caparo’, 10 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101567
Rhododendron ‘Capitano Neil McEacharn’ , 2004, (pc), WSY0112231
Rhododendron ‘Carroll’s Brocaded Pillow’, 7 Feb 2005, (pc),
WSY0070186
Rhododendron ‘Chantal de Kersulec’, 21 May 2008, (pc),
WSY0101191
Rhododendron ‘Città di Biella’, 25 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101346
Rhododendron ‘Commendatore Salvatore Bianchi’, 2004, (pc),
WSY0112232
Rhododendron ‘Conte Alessandro Orsetti’, 2004, (pc), WSY0112230
Rhododendron ‘December Red’, 29 Dec 2008, (pc), WSY0101958
Rhododendron ‘Dora Remotti’, 10 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101267
Rhododendron ‘Dotella’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101571
Rhododendron ‘Ed Hillary’, 30 Sep 2008, (pc), WSY0101453
Rhododendron ‘Elena Garibaldi’, 8 Apr 2008, (pc), WSY0101321
Rhododendron ‘Emily Jayde’, 23 Jan 2008, (pc), WSY0101032
79
Rhododendron ‘Emma Williams’, 26 Apr 2008, (fl), WSY0112019
Rhododendron ‘Enzo Piacenza’, 8 Apr 2008, (pc), WSY0101338
Rhododendron ‘Ermanno De Biaggi’, 10 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101270
Rhododendron ‘Favaro’, 10 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101272
Rhododendron ‘Fay Norman’, 6 May 2008, (fl), WSY0101114
Rhododendron ‘Felice Piacenza’, 11 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101274
Rhododendron ‘Galinit’, 11 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101276
Rhododendron ‘Giuseppe Bozzalla’, 11 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101278
Rhododendron ‘Grazia Castelli’, 2004, (pc), WSY0112228
Rhododendron ‘Guido Piacenza’, 11 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101280
Rhododendron ‘Harry’s Ruby’, 21 May 2008, (fl), WSY0101168
Rhododendron ‘Holi’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101574
Rhododendron ‘Hong Yun’, 2008, (pc), WSY0101887
Rhododendron ‘Hydon Ben’, 3 May 2007, (fl), WSY0108028
Rhododendron ‘Ibykus’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101576
Rhododendron ‘Isabella Cavadini’, 2004, (pc), WSY0112223
Rhododendron ‘James Colville’, 10 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101024
Rhododendron ‘Jean Leggett’, 4 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101021
Rhododendron ‘Jiao Yan’, 2008, (pc), WSY0101889
Rhododendron ‘Jin Zhi Zhu’, 2008, (pc), WSY0101888
Rhododendron ‘Joan Elder’, 4 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101022
Rhododendron ‘Judy’s Sunrise’, 2 Jan 2008, (pc), WSY0100797
Rhododendron ‘Kala Daag’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101582
Rhododendron ‘Kali’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101583
Rhododendron ‘Kenneth Wilson’, 2 Jan 2008, (pc), WSY0100799
Rhododendron ‘Kita-no-hakuho’, 23 Jan 2008, (pc), WSY0101036
Rhododendron ‘Kranenburg’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101589
Rhododendron ‘Kranenfee’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101593
Rhododendron ‘Kranengold’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101599
Rhododendron ‘Kranenpepper’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101604
Rhododendron ‘Kranenstar’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101605
Rhododendron ‘Lockington’s Dawn’, 30 Dec 2008, (pc), WSY0101955
Rhododendron ‘Lorenzo Delleani’, 11 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101282
Rhododendron ‘Luigi Cavadini’, 2004, (pc), WSY0112221
Rhododendron ‘Luigi Squillario’, 11 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101284
Rhododendron ‘Luisa Pallavicino’, 2004, (pc), WSY0112222
Rhododendron ‘Mahasona’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101608
Rhododendron ‘Marabella’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101616
80S. R. Grayer
Rhododendron ‘Maria Ratti’, 2004, (pc), WSY0112217
Rhododendron ‘Marie-Louise Agius’, 19 Mar 2008, (fl), WSY0112002
Rhododendron ‘Mario Carmine’, 2004, (pc), WSY0112215
Rhododendron ‘Marnie’s Charm’, 30 Dec 2008, (pc), WSY0101953
Rhododendron ‘Maurice Kupsch’, 23 Jan 2008, (pc), WSY0101028
Rhododendron ‘Maurizio Zumaglini’, 12 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101288
Rhododendron ‘Mayaro’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101618
Rhododendron ‘Miss Essie’, 29 Dec 2008, (pc), WSY0101962
Rhododendron ‘Monbarone’, 12 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101287
Rhododendron ‘Mondnacht’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101626
Rhododendron ‘Monte Mucrone’, 12 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101289
Rhododendron ‘Monviso’, 12 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101291
Rhododendron ‘Morioka-bijin’, 30 Sep 2008, (tr), WSY0101455
Rhododendron ‘Nicoletta Furno’, 12 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101293
Rhododendron ‘Nishan’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101622
Rhododendron ‘Nordic Smile’, 2008, (pc), WSY0101964
Rhododendron ‘Nordic Venture’, 2008, (pc), WSY0101969
Rhododendron ‘Oremo’, 12 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101297
Rhododendron ‘Oropa’, 12 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101302
Rhododendron ‘Our Kate Marise’, 12 Mar 2008, (fl), WSY0112004
Rhododendron ‘Parco Burcina’, 12 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101301
Rhododendron ‘Pier Giorgio Frassati’, 12 Mar 2008, (pc),
WSY0101306
Rhododendron ‘Pietro Porcinai’, 12 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101308
Rhododendron ‘Pink Sunset’, 18 Jun 2009, (fl), WSY0112559
Rhododendron ‘Pitacca’, 12 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101310
Rhododendron ‘Pollone’, 12 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101312
Rhododendron ‘Provincia di Biella’, 19 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101314
Rhododendron ‘Pyari’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101625
Rhododendron ‘Ramella’, 19 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101316
Rhododendron ‘Rescassa’, 25 Apr 2006, (fl), WSY0100141
Rhododendron ‘Rosmini Antonio’ , 2004, (pc), WSY0112213
Rhododendron ‘S.I.R.’, 19 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101323
Rhododendron ‘San Barnaba’, 25 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101334
Rhododendron ‘San Pool’, 25 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101336
Rhododendron ‘Snow Man’, 1985, (tr), WSY0010220
Rhododendron ‘Sonnenwende’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101637
Rhododendron ‘Sophie Elizabeth’, 23 Jan 2008, (pc), WSY0101029
81
Rhododendron ‘Suna’, 2004, (pc), WSY0112211
Rhododendron ‘Terai-shiro’, 29 Apr 2007, (pc), WSY0101031
Rhododendron ‘Toco’, 15 Jul 2008, (pc), WSY0101643
Rhododendron ‘Valfenera’, 25 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101340
Rhododendron ‘Valle Elvo’, 25 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101342
Rhododendron ‘Vandorba’, 25 Mar 2008, (pc), WSY0101344
Rhododendron ‘Verbania’, 2004, (pc), WSY0112209
Rhododendron ‘Vito Ratti’, 2004, (pc), WSY0112207
Rhododendron ‘Xi Lin Men’, 2008, (pc), WSY0101885
Rhododendron ‘Xue Mei Ren’, 2008, (pc), WSY0101886
Rhododendron ‘Zi Yan’, 2008, (pc), WSY0101890
Roscoea cautleyoides ‘Pennine Purple’, 31 May 2008, (fl),
WSY0112074
Rosmarinus officinalis ‘Bolham Blue’, 11 Apr 2000, (fl), WSY0038562
Rubus cockburnianus ‘Goldenvale’, 26 Jun 1996, (v), WSY0001145
Scabiosa africana ‘Jocelyn’, 11 Sep 2009, (fl), WSY0112849
Streptocarpus ‘Alissa’, 19 May 2008, (fl), WSY0101198
Streptocarpus ‘Hannah’, 14 Sep 2009, (fl), WSY0112951
Streptocarpus ‘Hope’, 14 Sep 2009, (fl), WSY0112949
Streptocarpus ‘Lucy’, 18 May 2009, (fl), WSY0112339
Streptocarpus ‘Megan’, 18 May 2009, (fl), WSY0112340
Streptocarpus ‘Rebecca’, 12 Feb 2008, (fl), WSY0100985
Taraxacum officinale agg. ‘Nettleton’, 15 May 2009, (v), WSY0112337
Trifolium repens ‘Hullavington’, 15 May 2009, (v), WSY0112335
Trifolium repens ‘Stephanie’, 7 Sep 2006, (v), WSY0096103
Tulipa ‘Bronzewing’, 10 May 1927, (p), WSY0021918
Tulipa ‘Clos de Vougeot’, 21 May 1929, (p), WSY0021920
Tulipa ‘Dipper’, 8 May 1928, (p), WSY0021921
Tulipa ‘Dorothy Ann’, 21 May 1929, (p), WSY0021922
Tulipa ‘Lady Ernle’, 21 May 1929, (p), WSY0021925
Tulipa ‘Mars’, 10 May 1927, (p), WSY0021926
Tulipa ‘Suzette’, 20 May 1941, (p), WSY0021931
Tulipa ‘Trinita’, 1942, (p), WSY0021903
Urtica dioica ‘Stephanie’, 15 May 2009, (v), WSY0112336
Verbascum ‘Aurora’, 3 Jul 2007, (fl), WSY0112890
Verbascum ‘Aztec Gold’, 3 Jul 2007, (fl), WSY0112887
Verbascum ‘Charlotte’, 12 May 2008, (fl), WSY0101936
Verbascum ‘Claire’, 9 Jul 2007, (fl), WSY0112888
82S. R. Grayer
Verbascum ‘Clementine’, 12 May 2008, (fl), WSY0101175
Verbascum ‘Elektra’, 11 Jun 2009, (fl), WSY0112896
Verbascum ‘Firedance’, 13 Jun 2007, (fl), WSY0112875
Verbascum ‘Hiawatha’, 9 Jul 2007, (fl), WSY0112885
Verbascum ‘High Noon’, 5 Jul 2007, (fl), WSY0105388
Verbascum ‘Merlin’ (PBR), 12 Jun 2007, (fl), WSY0112892
Verbascum ‘Moonshadow’, 8 Jun 2007, (fl), WSY0105382
Verbascum ‘Nimrod’, 11 Jul 2007, (fl), WSY0112884
Verbascum ‘Petra’, 21 May 2008, (fl), WSY0101170
Verbascum ‘Tropic Blush’, 5 Jul 2007, (fl), WSY0105384
Verbascum ‘Tropic Dawn’, 11 Jun 2008, (fl), WSY0112900
Verbascum ‘Tropic Moon’, 6 Jun 2008, (fl), WSY0112904
Verbascum ‘Tropic Rose’, 10 Jun 2008, (fl), WSY0112909
Verbascum ‘Tropic Spice’, 6 Jun 2008, (fl), WSY0112902
Verbascum ‘Tropic Sun’, 5 Jul 2007, (fl), WSY0105387
Verbascum ‘Virginia’, 6 Jul 2007, (fl), WSY0112876
Reference
Hanburyana 5: 83–84 (2011) Index
Achimenes beatonii 64
Beatonia 64
Belamcanda chinensis 67
Brachypappus candicans 9
Cacalia candicans 8, 9
Cineraria
candida 10
nebrodensis 9
Coleus aromaticus 52
× Coobranthus 43
coryi 43
“lancasteri” 43
× Cooperanthes 37
‘Alipore Beauty’ 41
bella 41
blanda 41, 43
hortensis 40
“Labufaroseus” 42
lancastrae 37, 38, 39,
41, 43, 44
‘Mary’ 41
‘Percy’ 41
rosea 37, 40
‘Sunset’ 37, 41, 44, 45
‘Sydney’ 42
Cooperia 43, 45
drummondii 37, 38, 39,
40, 41
oberwetteri 37, 38,
41, 43
pedunculata 42, 43
Culcitium gayanum 9
Dichroa 47
× Didrangea 47
Disporopsis 47
fuscopicta 47
luzoniensis 48
Disporum
cantoniense 48
var. cantoniense 48
var. sikkimense 48
var. y-tiense 49
‘Green Giant’ 48
longistylum 48
‘Night Heron’ 48
luzoniense 47
megalanthum 48
Dysosma
difformis 53
emeiensis 53
majoensis
var. emeiensis 53
veitchii 53
var. longipetalis 53
versipellis 53
Glandularia 50
× hybrida 50
× maonettii 50
Guatteria longifolia 59
Habranthus 45
howardii 43
immaculatus 44
juncifolius 44
robustus 38
teretifolia 44
tubispathus 41, 44
Hedychium 50
coccineum 51
coronarium 50
gardnerianum 50, 51
‘Kewense’ 51
× moorei 50, 51
× raffillii 51
‘Raffillii’ 51
‘Tara’ 51
× wilkeanum 50
Hydrangea 47
Iris
dichotoma 67
domestica 67
× norrisii 67
Jacobaea candida 8, 10
83
Ligularia
‘Cheju Charmer’ 51
fischeri 51
var. megalorhiza 52
Oxalis
laciniata 33–36
var. laciniata 33, 34
var. pubescens 34,
35, 36
squamoso-radicosa 33
var. pubescens 33, 34
× Pardancanda norrisii 67
Pardanthopsis dichotoma 67
Plectranthus
amboinicus 52
cylindraceus 52
montanus 52
‘Werner Rauh’ 53
Podophyllum
sp. A. & B. 53
delavayi 53
var. longipetalum 53
difforme 53
emeiense 53, 54
versipelle
subsp.boreale
var. sichuanense 53
Polyalthia
longifolia 57–60
var. pendula 57, 58
‘Pendula’ 57, 58,
59, 60
‘Temple Pillar’ 59, 60
pendula 58, 60
Rhododendron 11–29,
30–32
subg. Hymenanthes 11
sect. Pontica 30–32
subsect. Pontica
13, 18
subg. Rhododendron 11
subg. Vireya 12
84Index
Rhododendron (cont.)
arboreum 12, 15, 30
baeticum 20, 21
subsp. baeticum 21
californicum 24, 32
catawbiense 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24,
25, 26, 30, 31, 32
‘Album’ 24
‘Catalgia’ 24
var. compactum 24
caucasicum 30, 31, 32
× cunninghamii 31
× intermedium 30, 32
macrophyllum 13, 16,
17, 20, 24, 25, 32
maximum 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25,
26, 30, 31, 32
f. album 22
f. purpureum 22
× morelianum 30, 32
Old Hardy Hybrids 12,
13
ponticum 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
25, 30, 32
album 31
var. baeticum 21
var. brachyphyllum 21
var. heterophyllum 21
var. skorpilii 21
robustissimum 30
× sochadzeae 30, 32
‘Cunningham’s
White’ 30
× stanwellianum 31, 32
Stanwellianum Group
31
× superponticum 25
× wellesleyanum 31, 32
‘Wellesleyanum’ 31
Ribes
aureum 61
× bactonii 63
× beatonii 61–66
× gordonianum 62, 63
hybridum 61
× loudonii 62, 63
sanguineum 61
Senecio 8
bicolor 10
subsp. nebrodensis 8
candicans 8, 9
candidans 8–10
candidus 8, 9
cineraria 8, 9
culciremyi 9
× Sydneya 43
bella 44
castellanosii 44, 45
india 41, 44
lancast[er]ae 39, 43, 44
morrisii 44, 45
× Sydneyara 45
Syringa 5–7
B loomerang Purple 7
chuanxiensis 3
mairei 3
’Penda’ 6
pinetorum 3–4
pubescens
subsp. patula
’Colby’s Twinkling
Little Star’ 6
reticulata
subsp. reticulata
‘Bailnce’ 5
rugulosa 3
Snowdance 6
wardii 3
yunnanensis 3
Tigridia 64
Unona longifolia 59
Uvaria
altissima 59
longifolia 57, 59
Verbena
× hybrida 50
tenera
var. maonettii 50
× Zebranthus 44
× Zephybranthus 41, 44
castellanosii 45
morrisii 45
Zephyranthes 37–46
andersonii 37, 41
bifolia 44
× blanda 41
brazosensis 44
carinata 37, 40
chlorosolen 38, 40, 41, 44
citrina 41
drummondii 38, 42
grandiflora 38, 40, 41,
43, 44
La Bufa Rosa Group 43
‘Aperitif’ 42
‘Confection’ 42
‘Heart Throb’ 42
‘Itsy Bitsy’ 42
‘Lily Pies’ 42
‘Star Spangled’ 42
‘Summer’s Chill’ 42
‘La Buffa Rose’ 42
× lancasteri 40
× lancastrae 39, 40,
41, 43
‘Alipore Beauty’ 41
‘Mary’ 40, 41
percyi 41
‘Sydney’ 42
robusta 37, 38, 41
rosea 40
traubii 42
treatiae 41, 43

Hanburyana © RHS - Royal Horticultural Society

Transcription

Documents pareils

Jeux Casino Gratuit Zorro Jeu Du Casino Cycle 2

RHS Lindley Library Occasional Paper March 2010

Kanata Recreation Kanata Kanata Recreation Kanata